PDA

View Full Version : Mech Spam in 6th Edition



DeathMetal4tw
03-11-2011, 02:35
All the mech in 40k kind of breaks my heart. It's not that transports aren't awesome, but the fact that they are pretty much mandatory for most armies now strikes me as more than a little lame, it kind of ruins the diversity of the game for me. In 6th Edition, at least from what we know now, does it seem that mech spam will be curbed at all?

massey
03-11-2011, 02:44
The rumors we've heard indicate it'll be easier to hit most vehicles. So yes, it may help reduce the prevalence of mech armies.

Blackknight1239
03-11-2011, 02:59
The problem is, frankly, troop transports are always strictly better than being on foot. Always. There's a reason they are so common amongst modern armies. They are better than troops on foot because not only are they fast, but they protect the troops from being shot at. It would probably be better if the wounds the models took for having a destroyed transport were better, or transports where more expensive, but I'm sure it would work in a game like 5th ed.

Spell_of_Destruction
03-11-2011, 03:11
There are theoretically situations where you don't want/need a Transport. A squad whose role is to camp on an objective don't really need a Transport.

Part of the problem is that some Transports have become so cheap and have decent weapon loadouts that they seem an absolute steal and a great way of filling spare points.

From a fluff perspective I think it makes perfect sense that armies such as SMs, Eldar and Tau are predominantly mechanised. If they want to make footslogging Eldar viable (without limiting the player to a handful of units) then they need to introduce webway portals or something because expensive T3 4+ save infantry are never going to fare well outside of a Transport.

I think there should a shift to re-balance the game more in favour of infantry hordes for the benefit of those armies who are likely to use them (such as Orks and Tyranids). The current assault rules do not lend themselves well to large infantry squads. A good start would be to make numbers an actual advantage.

Toadius80
03-11-2011, 03:20
I am yet to find MEQ as prevalent as forums imply. At my local club they are rarely seen and when they do appear they dont tent to fair too well. As a club we generally rate a transport as more of a liability for a unit due to the usual
'Ohh look what my (insert unit) just did to your puny tank, hope they enjoy having to walk, oh and look, you even lost a couple of guys"
We have a very wide range of armys and none fair too well. Either it be from shooting or cc :-(
I swear we all must be missing something major. Though I have found a rhino makes good mobile cover during an advance but that's pretty much it.
Obviously this is exception to the heavy stuff such as LR's but they aren't your average MEQ.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk

SideshowLucifer
03-11-2011, 03:28
I don't think the normal transports will be rated as tanks in the next edition and thus will be easier to get destroyed results on (think old damage chart with -1 for being a tank).

Kharn_21
03-11-2011, 03:39
I think sideshow has it spot on, I haven't played in awhile but modern personnel carriers do not have the armor protection of tanks. An oldish M113 (the rhinos inspiration) can barely take .50 rounds much less an RPG. More recent armored fighting vehicles suffer the same problem. You have to sacrifice protection for the ability to carry troops without a tank becoming to expensive/heavy. Land raider is a curious exception.. (battery dying, more later)

Sent from my SGH-i917 using Board Express

The Marshel
03-11-2011, 03:45
I am yet to find MEQ as prevalent as forums imply. At my local club they are rarely seen and when they do appear they dont tent to fair too well. As a club we generally rate a transport as more of a liability for a unit due to the usual
'Ohh look what my (insert unit) just did to your puny tank, hope they enjoy having to walk, oh and look, you even lost a couple of guys"
We have a very wide range of armys and none fair too well. Either it be from shooting or cc :-(
I swear we all must be missing something major. Though I have found a rhino makes good mobile cover during an advance but that's pretty much it.
Obviously this is exception to the heavy stuff such as LR's but they aren't your average MEQ.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk

meq means marine equivalent. the term your after is mech.

If not every gamer and their dog are playing mech i can see foot armies doing much better. half the problem imo is that applying the Mech culture only furthers the mech culture. You have to be mech to keep up with mech, be as resilient as mech and often to put out as many shots as mech. you have to spam that mech to deal with the anti mech tactics too.

Basically if half the gamers in the world all decided simultaneously to stop using mech so much, the meta might shift to something a bit more varied, but this doesnt happen on its own, numerous events will have to trigger it (such as 5th ed vehicle rules followed by 5th ed guard making mech the clear king of 5th ed)

Lazarian
03-11-2011, 04:07
Transports at the very least shield small arms anti infantry fire from your troops, wasting valuable shots going into transports, pretty much gold right there. A 30~50ish point transport taking any fire is shots not going into troops. The reverse is even a worse proposition, if you fail to knock out transports a wave of vehicle heavy weapons are incoming in a matter of moments.

Mike3791
03-11-2011, 06:41
Another reason why APCs wouldn't be used in real modern armies, would be in spec op missions. If you are looking to achieve a more stealthy approach and hit the enemy by surprise then you are going to leave your transport at home base(unless you are coming in by air). However it sounds like the rules for 6th will be similar to Warhammer Fantasy when shooting at "Large Targets".. +1 to hit maybe?

xxRavenxx
03-11-2011, 07:14
I miss the old rules where a penetrating hit caused the men to dismount, for fear of dying in an iron coffin.

It made transports useful, but not *too* good, as once you'd nailed the tank with something big, the men went scurrying for cover and could be assulted, or further shot at.

A lot of the "worst" armies right now (according to the tournament scene) are those who don't have / can't deal with multiple armored vehicles in the shooting phase, and rely on assaults. (Daemons and nids, I'm looking at you...)

Rick Blaine
03-11-2011, 08:00
I'm fairly certain that GW wil shake things up enough to make everyone re-tool their armies. Making transports suck again is a reasonable expectation, as is a change to scoring units so people drop their Troops and buy something else.

Bunnahabhain
03-11-2011, 10:54
Mechanized spam only works as the vehicle rules are so bad, mechanically.

Only having 5 AVs, and sticking with the s+ D6 basis for Armour pen makes it very hard to differentiate between how hard vehicles are, so we end up with a horde of vehicles that need heavy weapons to deal with. The damage table is also a major problem, with transports having far fewer disabling results than shooting vehicles.

Simple fixes don't work. Ban units from scoring whilst embarked, for instance, and every eldar player will hate you, and every Guard and Ork player will love having to use horde builds for the whole edition.

The whole vehicle rules need scrapping, and re-writing from the ground up, so they're much better integrated into the core rules. Then we might not end up with vehicles being king, or being coffins, but balanced.

tu33y
03-11-2011, 11:25
guys, a squad of guys costing 20 sat in a 20 tank is 40. that is exactly twice the price of a squad NOT in a transport.

mech is here to stay.

as example, i was thinking about the OLD rmoured comapny rules, years ago, where if you rolled enough sixes a bolter could kill a russ. that was done because at the time most armies had two tanks. they thought dropping 10+ on the table would just cause everyone to futureshock and explode.

now, ten tanks is fairly normal (for IG, others its 5-6)

they WANT us to buy more tanks, and troops to put in them. i have no problem with this at all, i think its cool. i like the idea of a squad having their own vehicle, and painting little details to identify it.

one of my squads of guardsmen has a barheaded guy in, and his helmet sits on the top of the chimera his squad uses.

mech is here to stay.

Bunnahabhain
03-11-2011, 11:33
Tu33y, that doesn't explain the worst offender, the chimera.

20 squad sat in a 20 tank is 40

So is a 20 squad, and the next 20 squad that costs as much, points wise, as the 20 tank.

TheLionReturns
03-11-2011, 11:35
I'd get rid of firing points. Having to get out of your tank if you want to use the guns you paid for makes the transport more of, well a transport, and less of a bunker.

Bunnahabhain
03-11-2011, 11:58
Why? The BMP, which a chimera is clearly derived from has 4 firing ports per side.
That's because it's an Infantry fighting vehicle- designed to give significant supporting fire to the infantry, and to let them fire effectively from inside it.

Armoured personnel carriers ( ie the rhino) typically have no firing ports, and much more limited supporting firepower-

EDIT: Both of them allow the infantry to access more ammo. A more realistic restriction would be a BS penalty on embarked troops. Not totally balanced, but a better starting point than no shooting, or unaffected shooting.

tu33y
03-11-2011, 12:08
no passenger can fire if the vehicle moves might be a good idea, as would immediate de embarkation if the vehicle suffers a glancing hit, like the old days

the_picto
03-11-2011, 12:28
Stop units from scoring when in a vehicle. No more flatout, last turn, waveserpent objective grabs.

Make units unable to disembark from a shaken or stunned vehicle. Transports will start to care about taking glancing hits.

Greater penalties for your vehicle being wrecked or destroyed.

Korraz
03-11-2011, 12:43
If tradition is anything to go by, transports will be coffins again.

Zinch
03-11-2011, 12:57
Yeah, "de-meching" the meta is easily acomplished by a rules change. Other issue is if GW wants that... Maybe the necron ghost ark is an indication of the upcoming rules: a vehicle that is still good even if the passengers are outside (scoring only if outside of the transport or something like this...)

I realy think that with only minor changes is posible to keep vehicles as a good option without them being mandatory... Passengers that cannot disembark in a stunt result and stunning the vehicle if a immobilised/weapon destroyed is rolled would be enough IMO. This way vehicles still protect units inside, but the damage output of this units is easily ignored.

fidesratioque
03-11-2011, 13:17
Stop units from scoring when in a vehicle. No more flatout, last turn, waveserpent objective grabs.

Make units unable to disembark from a shaken or stunned vehicle. Transports will start to care about taking glancing hits.

Greater penalties for your vehicle being wrecked or destroyed.

It isn't like the Eldar have much else going for them nowadays.

Chapters Unwritten
03-11-2011, 13:18
EDIT: Both of them allow the infantry to access more ammo. A more realistic restriction would be a BS penalty on embarked troops. Not totally balanced, but a better starting point than no shooting, or unaffected shooting.

Stop units from scoring when in a vehicle. No more flatout, last turn, waveserpent objective grabs.

Make units unable to disembark from a shaken or stunned vehicle. Transports will start to care about taking glancing hits.

I like these ideas, but I feel like we are all skirting the issue, and that is that vehicles present advantages. Being on foot does not. This is the real issue; not so much that vehicles are too good, but that there is footslogging yang to their yin. This is unfortunately accurate to a realistic combat situation, the only advantage to troops being that they are more nimble and are harder targets on foot for vehicles as they are not as maneuverable.

I have no ready answer to this, honestly. I guess a step in the right direction might be to-hit modifiers, either for moving vehicles or on running targets. I believe 6th ed already has some of this in mind.

Lowering BS by 1 for units firing from a fire point is probably a good idea. There will be less incentive to use "parking lot" strategies in this case. I also think hits being able to occasionally injure troops inside vehicles might help, because really, a squad in a vehicle is all but invincible until the vehicle is detonated.

Controlling the damage output of the unit inside will never work, because the fact is, a lot of them aren't that damaging, and with the exception of the Chimera and a couple others, the ones that ARE damaging are designed that way to compensate for failings in other areas of the troops inside.

Okuto
03-11-2011, 14:05
personally I have no issue with "mech spam" as it feels very much in character.....

I find it odd armies in the future would march to the fight instead of riding, deepstriking, teleporting there.....

walking is so primitive......and mind you I play a all infantry IG army

Yunaris
03-11-2011, 14:29
To be honest one of the biggest solutions to mech would be adding unit specific movement speeds back in. Tyranids wouldn't have so great a problem if their smaller swarms moved way faster than everyone else.

The other primary solution also is actually being able to -do something- against passengers while in their transports without blowing up the transport. If you can accidently blow off a weapon, stun the crew and smash the engine - you should be able to massacre the passengers with a lucky shot to the passenger compartment.

Korraz
03-11-2011, 14:35
The rules themselves are fine. (Well, actually they are not, but let's not get tangled up in deep deisgn.) The problem is the cost.
They either had to make vehicles better, OR they had to make them cheaper.
They did both. That's what made this edition the Mech edition. Cheap transports. Make them COST something again and we're back in the right track.

Bunnahabhain
03-11-2011, 14:35
I'm working on a fairly full re-write of the vehicle rules- as full as possible without invalidating every codex going. It's not as good as it could be, but given the restraints of staying within the existing codex framework, it's not bad..

I'll just post the damage table...

The Damage table.

0 or less The unit must make a Ld check, or be suppressed (owning player chooses)

1. Vehicle suppressed, owning player chooses.

2. Vehicle suppressed, opposing player chooses

3. Weapon destroyed- the opposing player removes a weapon of their choice, or hits the passenger compartment. ( Roll a d6 for each passenger, on a 1 ( 1 or 2 if open topped), they take hit with the same S, AP, special rules as the weapon that caused the damage, no cover saves possible! If the attack had no specified S or AP, then resolve it as Sd6 Ap-.

4. Immobilised.

5. Wrecked. The vehicle is no longer functional and cannot be repaired, the passengers must dis-embark. Leave vehicle in place as a wreck.

6. Destroyed. The Vehicle is destroyer, and cannot be repaired. The passengers take a Sd6+1, Ap- hit, and must dis-embark. Leave in place as a smoking ruin.

7+ Catastrophic explosion. All passengers take a S2d6 , AP D3+1, hit.
Explosion of D6," radius, S D6+1, AP D6+1 from vehicle, the vehicle is removed, and replaced with crater or scattered ruins of about the same foot print, if possible.

Modifiers.
-2 Glance, -1 AP- +1 AP1 +1 Open topped

GodlessM
03-11-2011, 14:40
The rumors we've heard indicate it'll be easier to hit most vehicles. So yes, it may help reduce the prevalence of mech armies.

Yes but if your weapon isn't AP1 then you will be suffering -1 to your damage rolls, so that means even with a pen. you will need a 6 to wreck it. And the days of glancing something to death are going to be gone pretty much.

TheLionReturns
03-11-2011, 14:43
Why? The BMP, which a chimera is clearly derived from has 4 firing ports per side.
That's because it's an Infantry fighting vehicle- designed to give significant supporting fire to the infantry, and to let them fire effectively from inside it.

Armoured personnel carriers ( ie the rhino) typically have no firing ports, and much more limited supporting firepower-

EDIT: Both of them allow the infantry to access more ammo. A more realistic restriction would be a BS penalty on embarked troops. Not totally balanced, but a better starting point than no shooting, or unaffected shooting.

It is simply because there is too little incentive to get out of the metal box for me. I feel there should be an opportunity cost to the protection it affords. Being unable to use the squads special and heavy weapons while embarked would do this, although losing scoring status would be another way.

It is also worth bearing in mind that there was a time when the Chimera didn't have firing ports as it does now. Instead it had 6 fixed lasguns (3 each side) that could be fired by passengers.

Are firing ports necessary for it to be an Infantry Fighting Vehicle? I am not an expert on such things but I would think that the presence of a multilaser and a heavy bolter would be enough to put it into that category rather than being an armoured personnel carrier.

Korraz
03-11-2011, 14:50
There should be no incentive to get out of the box.
Just make
-Vehicles more expensive
-Anti-tank obstacles more common

Voss
03-11-2011, 14:54
There should be no incentive to get out of the box.

Incorrect. Battles aren't won from inside a box. And an AT round hitting a transport is _plenty_ of incentive to get out. No one wants to be a mixed packet of slurry.


Just make
-Vehicles more expensive
-Anti-tank obstacles more common
You'll have to expand on the second one, but the first involves waiting for every codex to be re-written. Doesn't seem practical.

ColShaw
03-11-2011, 15:10
If the terrain rules accurately reflected just how hard it is to move a vehicle through it, that might be a help right there (1 in 6 chance of immobilizing, 1 in 36 with a dozer blade, for most anything? Really?) Some terrain should just be flat-out impassable to non-skimmer vehicles, some impassable to vehicles, period, and some should be dangerous to the vehicle to the point of risking destruction.

I think that'd help encourage infantry to move out of their boxes to make their fire-sweeps.

Korraz
03-11-2011, 15:11
Battles aren't won from inside boxes all the time because
-The terrain does not allow it
-The boxes are too expensive to make them in the dozen

Neither holds true currently in 40k, and this is the problem. Tank Traps are either not used at all, or commonly ignored. Plaster objective spots with them, and suddenly the transports are pretty useles.


And sometimes you have to wait for something to be done right. That's just how it is.

madival
03-11-2011, 15:14
The problem I have with 5th edition is the vehicle damage table. if you made it to where the vehicle damage table was larger and when you pen'd a vehicle you got +x to it based on the number you beat the armor by, then I feel it would be better balanced. also pin units who have to climb out of a wreck'd vehicle. pen'ing hits all affecting everything the same is getting kinda lame.

Vaktathi
03-11-2011, 15:32
I miss the old rules where a penetrating hit caused the men to dismount, for fear of dying in an iron coffin.

It made transports useful, but not *too* good, as once you'd nailed the tank with something big, the men went scurrying for cover and could be assulted, or further shot at. And was the primary reason you never saw non-skimmer transports in 4E being used as anything but mobile terrain. It made them far too easy to neutralize.

With the increase in firepower in 5E armies, it wouldn't be impossible at all to disembark an entire mechanized foe in a single shooting phase for many armies.





The issue with transports isn't so much a problem with transports as with footslogging infantry. 40k has probably the fewest options of any wargame I can think of for infantry interacting with the board. There's no digging in, no standing to repel or active hiding. coupled with the extensive increase in killing power in recent years and the fact that few boards are properly set up for TLoS, it means footslogging infantry die very quickly.


If infantry could do something like spend a turn digging in and standing to repel to grant defensive bonuses (say +1 cover or 5+ if in the open and defensive grenade equivalent for digging in, and Counterattack for Standing), you'd probably see more reason for infantry to be on the board. You could do something like have a unit actively "hide" (say no movement/shooting/assault) where an opposing unit would have to take a BS test (using the highest BS in the unit) to be able to shoot at a hidden unit or may have to reroll successful hits or something.

Also, mech-spam fits perfectly for many armies in terms of fluff. Marines in general are not slogging on foot everywhere, Eldar and Tau have always been heavily mechanized. Mech IG regiments may not be super common in the fluff but given the IG's size there's likely significantly more mech IG *regiments* than there are Space Marines.

SunTzu
03-11-2011, 15:54
I like these ideas, but I feel like we are all skirting the issue, and that is that vehicles present advantages. Being on foot does not.

Yes. So vehicles should cost more points... that's what the points system is for.

The reason mech is so prevalent nowadays is that transports are about 35 points (unless you're unlucky enough to play Tau). For 35 points you, could, say, upgrade a unit with a couple of special weapons... or take a transport, so get a couple of extra weapons anyway, and move faster, and make the unit considerably more resilient, and provide mobile terrain, and have the ability to tank shock. All with no downside worth speaking of.

It's a total no-brainer. A transport for a unit makes that unit several times more effective - which is fine; except that it's for a fraction of the price of what it should be.

electricblooz
03-11-2011, 15:57
I agree with Vaktathi, the 40K simply does not do a good job of portraying the advantages of dismounted infantry. I think, in part, this is due to the evolution of the game from its Rogue Trader roots. In any case, I've listed some advantages that infantry have over vehicles that are not very well represented.

Infantry can react quicker than vehicles: While a vehicle might be able to travel between point a and point be faster than an infantryman, that vehicle cannot react nearly as quickly (if only due to inertia).
Infantry can find just about anything as cover and concealment: Look at the historical example of small groups of soldiers in cover holding off far superior numbers.
Infantry are relatively difficult to detect: even with today's vision enhancement systems, immoble infantry a a pain in the neck to see much less to accurately target. (you can argue all you want about 40K sighting systems, the counter is 40K obscurement systems.)

More than anything the problem is scaling a ruleset that was originally designed for person-on-person combat (Rogue Trader) with vehicles. This includes the miniature scale (28mm) to table size issue. If you really want more than one or two vehicles per side inthe game, you shoudl be playing on at least a 12' x 12' table.

massey
03-11-2011, 16:01
Well, GW isn't going to rewrite the entire game. That's not gonna happen. GW wants lots of models on a big board, and that's going to push you away from the most detailed rules sets.

In real life, people get out of APCs all the time. You don't want to be in an APC when the shooting starts, because if they have something big enough to hurt the APC, everyone inside dies. You want to be in an APC so you don't have to walk 50 miles to the next town. It's armored to give you a chance at survival when someone tries to cheap-shot you. None of that makes for a cinematic game like 40K. So "realism" isn't very entertaining or fun.

One of the biggest problems with vehicles is that terrain on the table is sparse. I've played in games that had a lot of terrain, and had a lot of it around objectives, and even in 5th, it can make vehicles more of a hinderance than a benefit. Stick an objective on the 3rd floor of a set of ruins. Make an alley beteen two buildings that is too narrow for a Land Raider to fit. If you fight in an open area with 2 hills, 4 clumps of trees, and single building, then of course tanks are valuable.

Vaktathi
03-11-2011, 16:15
Keep in mind there is a difference between an APC and an IFV, IFV's are designed to be able to be fought from. Rhinos are APC's designed for transport, Chimeras are IFV's in the manner of the BMP and Warrior where infantry can fight from within. The Warrior actually carry a LAW that could be fired from the fighting compartment. What made the BMP so scary to NATO when it first debuted was exactly the ability to fight from the vehicle while mounted and provide fire support.

Rhinos are APC's, they are battle taxi's. Units like Chimeras are IFV's and designed to be fought from, at least in some situations. There is ample precedent for units fighting from their vehicles.

Sami
03-11-2011, 16:34
The 6th edition rumours had vastly increased speeds for foot-slogging dudes. Most of the mech spam comes not only from good vehicles, but it actually being very difficult for foot-sloggers to effectively engage.

The increased chance of hitting a tank combined with a lower chance of hitting fast-moving infantry may be all it needs for people to not auto-mech everything (especially when those power-fists and the like will be on you very quickly).

massey
03-11-2011, 16:38
It isn't like the Eldar have much else going for them nowadays.

Missed this earlier. Eldar will get new rules. You don't want to make 6th ed rules specifically to benefit an old codex that's about to be replaced. Eldar can suffer for 6 months after the new rules come out, rather than everyone getting a crappy rule set.


Keep in mind there is a difference between an APC and an IFV, IFV's are designed to be able to be fought from. Rhinos are APC's designed for transport, Chimeras are IFV's in the manner of the BMP and Warrior where infantry can fight from within. The Warrior actually carry a LAW that could be fired from the fighting compartment. What made the BMP so scary to NATO when it first debuted was exactly the ability to fight from the vehicle while mounted and provide fire support.

Rhinos are APC's, they are battle taxi's. Units like Chimeras are IFV's and designed to be fought from, at least in some situations. There is ample precedent for units fighting from their vehicles.

They are designed where you can fight from them, but against guys using heavy weapons, you're still going to get out. You roll into Mogadishu or some other place, people start shooting at you with AK-47s, you stay in the IFV and shoot back. Some jerk shoots an RPG at you, you get out.

Mike3791
03-11-2011, 16:45
Missed this earlier. Eldar will get new rules. You don't want to make 6th ed rules specifically to benefit an old codex that's about to be replaced. Eldar can suffer for 6 months after the new rules come out, rather than everyone getting a crappy rule set.

I laughed when I saw this, because there is no such thing as "too much" suffering when it comes to Eldar haha.

Wrath
03-11-2011, 17:20
Transports won't "suck" but they will do what they are meant to, Protect troops from small arms and get blown the hell up by heavy weapons.

AFnord
03-11-2011, 17:25
The rules themselves are fine. (Well, actually they are not, but let's not get tangled up in deep deisgn.) The problem is the cost.
They either had to make vehicles better, OR they had to make them cheaper.
They did both. That's what made this edition the Mech edition. Cheap transports. Make them COST something again and we're back in the right track.

Yea, I agree. This is the major issue with 5th edition, they applied a dual fix to something that just needed a single fix, and now we are stuck with a no brainer option.


I remember back in 3rd edition, where (apart from rhino rushes) transports usually made for a more interesting and mobile game. But that was because that was not the only thing you faced. Only facing mechanised armies is basically what has killed the game for me, and I'm only lurking on these forums because I love the setting and many of the models. Yes it makes sense from a fluff point of view for most armies to be mounted in vehicles, but from a gameplay point of view, variety is an important spice (says the guy who used to do transport spam, up until everyone else started to do it, and now when he actually plays the game runs infantry hordes).

minionboy
03-11-2011, 17:27
I'm really looking forward to 6e and seeing how it tackles the transport issue. Even though IRL they do protect you from many small arms fire, an APC hit with a dedicated anti-tank weapon, or a damn railgun for that matter, probably isn't going to leave everyone inside intact. A S4 hit when your vehicle is obliterated by a Deathstrike missile is just kind of silly, what's sillier is that it's S3 when you're exposed directly to the blast in an open topped vehicle.

Vaktathi
03-11-2011, 17:34
People seem to have forgotten eldar vehicles were costed to 4E standards, an edition where many felt they were often in fact undercosted. The 5E rules changed the skimmer and vehicle rules and eldar just haven't been updated to reflect that, and at this point if 6E rumors are true, waiting would be the best course of action.



They are designed where you can fight from them, but against guys using heavy weapons, you're still going to get out. You roll into Mogadishu or some other place, people start shooting at you with AK-47s, you stay in the IFV and shoot back. Some jerk shoots an RPG at you, you get out. Depends on the situation but yes I understand that point, however given the timeframe of a 40k game (a couple of realtime minutes), gameplay mechanics, and balance considerations, the current system isn't too far off, rather it's the problem with footslogging infantry not really having many options that I feel is the bigger issue.


the problem with making transports too much more vulnerable, or putting in rules like the old 4E pen-disembark thing, is that they very rapidly go from being valuable to deathtraps and thus nonexistent. I'm sure I'm not the only one who remembers the practical extinction of tracked transports in 4E, or the nigh mythical status of the chimera and razorback before 5E.

Flames of War portrays transports much as they appear in real life, very resistant to small arms fire and killing embarked infantry very quickly if hit by anything heavier (though again not really taking into account that many modern IFV's have rather good armor given the time period). This leads to mechanized armies in general being amongst the most difficult to play and often routinely handicapped, and not uncommon to see them leave ~200pts of transports off the board and unused because they're just too much of a liability. I really don't want to see that in 40k because it's not fun or rewarding to have to leave lots of expensive and cool models off the board or see them as deathtraps.

EDIT: Also hooray 9000posts, I'll ensure that social life gets done in yet! :D

Wrath
03-11-2011, 19:10
I'm really looking forward to 6e and seeing how it tackles the transport issue. Even though IRL they do protect you from many small arms fire, an APC hit with a dedicated anti-tank weapon, or a damn railgun for that matter, probably isn't going to leave everyone inside intact. A S4 hit when your vehicle is obliterated by a Deathstrike missile is just kind of silly, what's sillier is that it's S3 when you're exposed directly to the blast in an open topped vehicle.

"if vehicle blows up (6+ on chart), embarked troops and models in D6 get S3 AP hit, if vehicle blows up embarked troops are Suppressed, if the vehicle is only wrecked they are fine"

That is the current BoK rumor. I really don't see people being terribly scared of getting blown up in there own transports but I do see transports having difficulty staying out of trouble with the new to-hit chart.

althathir
03-11-2011, 19:11
I agree with Vaktathi that infantry need more options and general abilities more than vehicles need to be nerfed.

That said

1) making units have to disembark to score is a fair change.

2) I don't think tanks that have troops embarked should be able to tank shock. I play eldar so this is a fairly common tactic but I think its a bit out of character for a driver to put his/her troops in danger.... well except for orks ;).

3) firing points could be nerfed quite a bit, either with a bs -1 or giving units that were fired upon from a firing point cover. Chimeras & rhinos would still be good but they wouldn't be as undercosted cause right now alot of people use them as melta bunkers.

Vaktathi
03-11-2011, 19:26
1) making units have to disembark to score is a fair change.
the issue with this is random game length. With a set game turn it was one thing, but for many armies, having to sit immobile on an objective for up to three turns would be rather punitive. It's one thing if you've got a 30 strong unit or a T4 3+sv unit or the like, but something like Dire Avengers, Guardsmen, Fire Warriors, etc are just too easily pushed off, a single heavy flamer being brought to bear (and against a unit having to stick in one place dismounted for up to three turns, not too difficult to accomplish) will see them likely forced off or near enough so. Too many troops units just were never intended to sit for up to three turns on an objective.

unheilig
03-11-2011, 19:35
GW wants to sell transport models. They also want to see infantry models on the board.

Whatever change happens, it will be an attempt to make you want transports, but also make you want to get out of the car at some point.

I feel the simplest change would be that troops inside transports cannot hold objectives (which also feels like proper combat logic).

Zinch
03-11-2011, 19:49
In the 6th edition rumors "leaked" some time ago, it was said that "scoring" was completely changed and that you "win a point if you have a scoring unit near an objective while your opponent isn't contesting it at the end of each turn" (or only in your turn, I don't remember)

This is a great rule to see more disembarked units (if they can't control an objective from inside a vehicle, of course)

althathir
03-11-2011, 20:09
the issue with this is random game length. With a set game turn it was one thing, but for many armies, having to sit immobile on an objective for up to three turns would be rather punitive. It's one thing if you've got a 30 strong unit or a T4 3+sv unit or the like, but something like Dire Avengers, Guardsmen, Fire Warriors, etc are just too easily pushed off, a single heavy flamer being brought to bear (and against a unit having to stick in one place dismounted for up to three turns, not too difficult to accomplish) will see them likely forced off or near enough so. Too many troops units just were never intended to sit for up to three turns on an objective.

I'm not really a fan of random game length, but for guardsman you can use your vehicles to block, tau & eldar both have enough speed to support them with various units, so it wouldn't be the end of the world.


GW wants to sell transport models. They also want to see infantry models on the board.

Whatever change happens, it will be an attempt to make you want transports, but also make you want to get out of the car at some point.

I feel the simplest change would be that troops inside transports cannot hold objectives (which also feels like proper combat logic).

I think everyone is in agreement with this for the most part, we're just curious to see how they do it.


In the 6th edition rumors "leaked" some time ago, it was said that "scoring" was completely changed and that you "win a point if you have a scoring unit near an objective while your opponent isn't contesting it at the end of each turn" (or only in your turn, I don't remember)

This is a great rule to see more disembarked units (if they can't control an objective from inside a vehicle, of course)

I really liked those rumours it would still favor some troop types units like dire avengers would be kinda worthless holding a backfield objective while other units with heavies could have more of an impact. But the rumoured scoring system is fairly simple and balanced.

sulla
03-11-2011, 20:54
I miss the old rules where a penetrating hit caused the men to dismount, for fear of dying in an iron coffin.

It made transports useful, but not *too* good, as once you'd nailed the tank with something big, the men went scurrying for cover and could be assulted, or further shot at.

A lot of the "worst" armies right now (according to the tournament scene) are those who don't have / can't deal with multiple armored vehicles in the shooting phase, and rely on assaults. (Daemons and nids, I'm looking at you...)Heh, back in 3rd, I remember my transports being so bad that they weren't worth taking. I think there is value to making troop transports actually survivable but costing them to represent that, so expensive but useful, rather than risky but cheap. Unfortunately, that's not GW's philosophy.

rocdocta
04-11-2011, 05:29
The thing is in 5th we have a table with 12 models on it. i prefer all previous editions where it actually looked like a battlefield and not just 6 things a side. why bother painting dudes if they are never seen (till they are forced to get out)?

Hendarion
04-11-2011, 15:42
All the mech in 40k kind of breaks my heart. It's not that transports aren't awesome, but the fact that they are pretty much mandatory for most armies now strikes me as more than a little lame, it kind of ruins the diversity of the game for me. In 6th Edition, at least from what we know now, does it seem that mech spam will be curbed at all?
Mech-spam for example for Elder will never end (although the transports are already damn cheap) just because of the Fact that a Heavy Bolter on a vehicle costs what? 5 Points? And it kills what? 4 Banshees in 2 turns? Now factor in how many Heavy Bolters my opponents usually have and there you go. Either you want your troops to do something at all and buy expensive transports or you don't and let them walk on feet. Still, don't get me wrong, I don't spend Serpents. I would like to, but they cost too much points to do so.

Totally different story will come to talk about if we ask why Marines take so many transports - not because they are good and Marines can't perform without them (hell, they can!) - but because Rhinos cost too less for what they offer.

Transport-spam is not a problem of editions (yea, 3rd was coffins of death, truly, that will stop any kind of transports easily - you FEAR taking one - not really what they should be about, you should WANT them), but actually of the point-costs of vehicles. Or why on earth it always comes down to Rhinos, Chimeras and Razorbacks when people talk about transports being too good? Points of course.

SunTzu
04-11-2011, 16:57
Or why on earth it always comes down to Rhinos, Chimeras and Razorbacks when people talk about transports being too good? Points of course.

Exactly. Points cost is the main reason that mech spam happens. Cheap transports are a no-brainer. It really is that simple.

UberBeast
04-11-2011, 17:03
I think they just need to make it so damaging and destroying a vehicle with passengers actually does more damage to the passengers.

Modern armies always disembark their mechanized infantry before engaging in combat. A fix that translates this to 40k would go pretty far to fix the issues people have with mech-meta in 5th edition.

Vaktathi
04-11-2011, 17:06
There is of course something that many seem to be missing. There has been a massive increase in many armies effective killing power and firepower with 5E over 4E. Combats are more decisive and lethal and units have more attacks and special rules than ever. We have RoF's that are several multiples that of what previous was the highest RoF levels in the game, tons of cover save ignoring weapons, template weapons are more effective than in previous versions, etc.

Footslogging infantry in general just have a lower lifespan than previous editions. Transports mitigate that.

SunTzu
04-11-2011, 17:10
True, though if transports cost more points, you'd not be able to afford so many highly destructive weapons as well as transports for all your troops... :)

This is of course another reason the older books (particularly Tau, now Necrons have been refreshed) suffer. Not only do they not have access to weaponry on the scale of new books (Heavy-20 weapons on an AV14 Leman Russ? Youch) but they're paying more points for their transports (85 for a Devilfish, 35 for a Chimera) so can afford fewer of the good guns they do have!

Bunnahabhain
04-11-2011, 17:19
True, though if transports cost more points, you'd not be able to afford so many highly destructive weapons as well as transports for all your troops... :)

This is of course another reason the older books (particularly Tau, now Necrons have been refreshed) suffer. Not only do they not have access to weaponry on the scale of new books (Heavy-20 weapons on an AV14 Leman Russ? Youch) but they're paying more points for their transports (85 for a Devilfish, 35 for a Chimera) so can afford fewer of the good guns they do have!

????

A chimera costs considerably more than 35 pts as stated. Some marines get rhinos for about that much...

There are two heavy 20 guns- Nids and IG. Both of them are widely regarded as rubbish, and not used. Go look at the army list section and find the first 20 lists of either force. If any of them include either of the heavy 20 units, I'll eat my hats.

SunTzu
04-11-2011, 17:29
The heavy 20 thing was what is known as an "example", of which an extreme example was picked to emphasise the case. Weapon power creep (as part of the larger phenomemon of Codex creep) is surely undeniable as a general observation; with which I was agreeing with Vaktathi.

The heavy 20 weapons may be considered "crap", fair enough, but they're better than Burst Cannons... fact.

Bunnahabhain
04-11-2011, 17:37
Examples should be correct. Demonstrating power creep with underpowered units, and simply wrong statements isn't how to do it.

If you'd picked a vendetta, or Psyrifle man dreads, now those are good examples of too powerful end of the newer books.

Pyriel
04-11-2011, 19:05
i think the true problem is not with the transports. it is with the MSU logic, a logic created by the fact that infantry have next to zero options besides "just a couple of heavy or special weapons".

hence, infantry units will use minimum size to max out on heavy/specials, and they will need transports to boost their survivability. and why get out of the transport anyway? you dont need to use the Troops unit; its Troops, it sux. just stay inside and fire heavy weapon from the hatch.

this.just.doesnt.work.

one of the few things i like about the new codices: they make POWERFUL troops units. grey hunters and strike squads are most definitely NOT just "heavy weapons platform with ablative wounds" , same with dark eldar troops, etc. these units WILL get out of their transports, they can/must be used, unlike "tactical tax" vanilla marines, or guardian squads, for example.

fact #1: in 5th ed, Troops must survive.
fact #2: obtaining transports is the cheapest way to boost their survivability.
fact #3: upgrading the Troops to survive more should never be done cause they are so bad/uncompetitive(usualy) unless some of the very last codices.
fact #4: from #2 and #3 we conclude that we should get supercheap troops choices and just hide in metal boxes.
these 4 facts have created the problem: the originaly called DAVU logic, or MSU mech.
solution: create more codices with very, very powerful Troops choices. these choices will be usable by competitive players, hence they wont just use transports to hide instead of actualy being transported.

Vaktathi
04-11-2011, 19:16
There's also the issue with stuff like Dawn of War. Mechanized armies are very effective in this deployment type, whereas infantry based armies struggle. This is especially apparent with IG, where a mechanized IG army can still throw out a good deal of firepower turn 1 and be good to go with everything in position turn 2, whereas an infantry based IG army will do practically nothing turn 1 and often not be able to take adequate advantage of cover and be out of position on turn 2.

It's one thing for mechvets to roll on the board turn 1 and be halfway up turn 2, it's another for footslogging heavy weapons infantry units to have to slug it to cover and adequate firing positions instead of being able to deploy in them.

In this case, it's really the fact that the infantry just get so putzed that makes the mechanized option is so attractive, the mission design actively works against the infantry build. Mech IG *love* Dawn of War. Infantry IG have an extremely difficult time in Dawn of War.

Lathrael
04-11-2011, 19:31
There are theoretically situations where you don't want/need a Transport. A squad whose role is to camp on an objective don't really need a Transport.


I beg to differ. Most of the time, i see objectives camped with troops that are in the transport. It protects them from initial assault, thanks to fire points all around most of the time does not hinder their shooting much, gives them immunity from most basic infantry weaponary, so, it's still a huge advantage.

althathir
04-11-2011, 21:25
i think the true problem is not with the transports. it is with the MSU logic, a logic created by the fact that infantry have next to zero options besides "just a couple of heavy or special weapons".

hence, infantry units will use minimum size to max out on heavy/specials, and they will need transports to boost their survivability. and why get out of the transport anyway? you dont need to use the Troops unit; its Troops, it sux. just stay inside and fire heavy weapon from the hatch.

this.just.doesnt.work.

one of the few things i like about the new codices: they make POWERFUL troops units. grey hunters and strike squads are most definitely NOT just "heavy weapons platform with ablative wounds" , same with dark eldar troops, etc. these units WILL get out of their transports, they can/must be used, unlike "tactical tax" vanilla marines, or guardian squads, for example.

fact #1: in 5th ed, Troops must survive.
fact #2: obtaining transports is the cheapest way to boost their survivability.
fact #3: upgrading the Troops to survive more should never be done cause they are so bad/uncompetitive(usualy) unless some of the very last codices.
fact #4: from #2 and #3 we conclude that we should get supercheap troops choices and just hide in metal boxes.
these 4 facts have created the problem: the originaly called DAVU logic, or MSU mech.
solution: create more codices with very, very powerful Troops choices. these choices will be usable by competitive players, hence they wont just use transports to hide instead of actualy being transported.

The thing is all the armies you listed SW, GK, DE the competitive lists are all "MSU" oriented. Dark Eldar seem to have more bodies but it tends to be just enough to unlock specials. Grey knights are slighty different in that they have a lot of builds but they can play the MSU game as well as anbody (im still not sold on draigowing).

Also DAVU (not sure where you got the logic? I learned it as dire avenger vehicle upgrade), really isn't the same as msu, it doesn't try and maximize specials its more of a way to avoid using the troop choice and stashing it in a vehicle. MSU lists rely on using the extra units to fire at more targets, and minimize loses when an opponent targets one of your own. DAVU is more of a put all your eggs in one basket strategy (and imo dire avengers work better in bigger squads but thats just me)


I beg to differ. Most of the time, i see objectives camped with troops that are in the transport. It protects them from initial assault, thanks to fire points all around most of the time does not hinder their shooting much, gives them immunity from most basic infantry weaponary, so, it's still a huge advantage.

The firing points tend to bother me the most, counting the vehicle as open-toped if a unit shoots out of the vehicle would also help. But in effect right now the firing point rules allow a mobile bunker for your special and thats what leads to you staring down 6 rhinos across the table.

Snowflake
04-11-2011, 21:31
Mech-spam for example for Elder will never end (although the transports are already damn cheap) just because of the Fact that a Heavy Bolter on a vehicle costs what? 5 Points? And it kills what? 4 Banshees in 2 turns? Now factor in how many Heavy Bolters my opponents usually have and there you go. Either you want your troops to do something at all and buy expensive transports or you don't and let them walk on feet. Still, don't get me wrong, I don't spend Serpents. I would like to, but they cost too much points to do so.

Totally different story will come to talk about if we ask why Marines take so many transports - not because they are good and Marines can't perform without them (hell, they can!) - but because Rhinos cost too less for what they offer.

Transport-spam is not a problem of editions (yea, 3rd was coffins of death, truly, that will stop any kind of transports easily - you FEAR taking one - not really what they should be about, you should WANT them), but actually of the point-costs of vehicles. Or why on earth it always comes down to Rhinos, Chimeras and Razorbacks when people talk about transports being too good? Points of course.

This. I hate that people lump mech all together as if everyone is equally guilty. The problems here are Imperium vehicles, mostly Marine vehicles, that are just way undercosted. It allows troops that don't actually need the box to survive to take one anyway, since it's cheap AND gives more heavy weapons.

As you note, Craftworld Eldar vehicles are, if anything, overcosted. They could stand to come down 10 points or so, and they still wouldn't be cheap. But they are taken anyway because the troops are expensive and fragile without them. This is in contrast to, say, Orks, who are fragile but cheap, and can do without. Dark Eldar as well have to have them, and they aren't cheap either.

Call a spade a spade. The problem is the Imperium vehicles, and it is solely because they're too cheap for what they do. Don't need to do anything more complex than up their point costs.

DuskRaider
04-11-2011, 23:59
I certainly hope that 6th Edition downplays mechanized by a large margin. IMO, it flies in the face of the spirit of the game. Things like psykers able to cast their powers inside of a vehicle (I'm looking at you, Space Wolves) without in turn being affected by outside powers (Zoanthropes and Doom of Malantai, for example) is ridiculous. Parking Lot objective claims are lame. The ridiculously undercosted vehicles are another issue. The game needs to get back to what is supposed to be it's focus: Infantry.

Vaktathi
05-11-2011, 00:09
This. I hate that people lump mech all together as if everyone is equally guilty. The problems here are Imperium vehicles, mostly Marine vehicles, that are just way undercosted. It allows troops that don't actually need the box to survive to take one anyway, since it's cheap AND gives more heavy weapons.

As you note, Craftworld Eldar vehicles are, if anything, overcosted. They could stand to come down 10 points or so, and they still wouldn't be cheap. But they are taken anyway because the troops are expensive and fragile without them. This is in contrast to, say, Orks, who are fragile but cheap, and can do without. Dark Eldar as well have to have them, and they aren't cheap either.

Call a spade a spade. The problem is the Imperium vehicles, and it is solely because they're too cheap for what they do. Don't need to do anything more complex than up their point costs.Again, keep in mind Eldar vehicles are costed to 4E rules, where they were, if anything, even greater force multipliers than the current Imperium transports. I think I can recall each and every Eldar tank in 4E that I killed, three and a half years on, that says something.

xavos
05-11-2011, 12:09
For me, 3rd edition saw a renewed focus on basic infantry supported by transports. The thing was that infantry weren't any good at doing anything except being cannon fodder or using their special/ heavy weapon/ close combat sergeant. 4th edition saw the rise of tanks, monstrous creatures and elites as well as some of the most vicious psychic powers imaginable. Unfortunately, transports became steel coffins for their troops. 5th edition brought a whole new meaning to mech armies as well as the rebirth of uber special characters.

For me, 5th edition troops are still only taken for capturing objectives (an arbitrary design choice) and using their special/heavy weapon: with the exception of Kabalite Warriors, they are the worst part of army selection. The good news is that special characters, elites, transports, tanks and walkers are all viable options now and give a player a bit more choice. For now, mech spam remains an efficient, viable army selection that players will continue to use until a new edition shakes up the rules.

ColShaw
05-11-2011, 13:20
Xavos, I disagree about troops only being useful for objectives and special/heavy use. As an IG player, I find my Infantry Platoons the most resilient and useful, both offensively and defensively, of my units.

Hendarion
05-11-2011, 13:47
The game needs to get back to what is supposed to be it's focus: Infantry.
Since when actually did THAT happen? I remember vehicles being a huge part of 40k since... 2nd edition!?


Again, keep in mind Eldar vehicles are costed to 4E rules, where they were, if anything, even greater force multipliers than the current Imperium transports. I think I can recall each and every Eldar tank in 4E that I killed, three and a half years on, that says something.
Lets say they would cost 10-15 points less. Would that make Eldar-players spam them like Rhinos? I highly doubt it. It would probably be the correct point-cost for a Serpent then, but that won't mean they become cheap and no-brainers. 10-15 points also is just a tiny fraction of what they cost in total. Lets say you increase a Rhino-base-points by 10-15. That probably would lead to much less of them being taken, being a huge amount compared to their current costs and actually make them cost what they are worth. Problem solved.

Yea, maybe someone should remove "Objective-Camping" and disable psychic powers being used from within a vehicle. But imo this is it. Making vehicles more dangerous to passengers will actually remove the only viable option Tau and Eldar have to get their troops moved around without dying like flies before reaching the point they need to get to. And note that this option is NOT CHEAP and especially in the games we play (800-1200 points) it is a hard though to take a single more serpent or not.

DeviantApostle
05-11-2011, 14:47
The way I see it in a nutshell: We're suffering from an overreaction in the transition from 4th to 5th and a trickledown effect from the tournament scene.

In 4e, transports were sub-par. We called them mobile coffins. They were overcosted and anything inside them would die to Lascannon spam. We wanted mechanized forces to be viable back in 4e.

In 5e, GW did what they do and overracted (they did the same sort thing nerfing psykers between 2nd and 3rd to the point where they were unusuable). All we wanted as either cheaper transports or more survivable transports. They did both with the Rhino, which set the tone for the rest of 5e.

When they made that change, they didn't look at the effect on the humble heavy weapon dude in the Tac Squad. Back in 2e, vehicles were SERIOUS power on the tabletop but they were mitigated because a Lascannon or ML could shoot at the vehicle while the troopers could shoot bolters at infantry. Oh and everyone could throw their Krak grenades.

Then, we had new missions for 5th. Objectives mean we need things to move fast, particularly in tournaments where many missions (that I've seen) have fixed objectives points. Even in the core rules, we have the base trade mission where you have objectives in opposite corners of the board; if you can't haul ass across the diagonal somehow, you're boned in that mission.

Here's the question I ask myself. How would we feel about transports if a) troop squads could split fire between weapon types to different targets and/or b) if objectives had to be within 24" of each other (or at least much closer than opposite corners of a 6x4' table)?

Mech dominates the current meta because you get the holy trinity: Firepower, Movement and Survivability all in one package. Note it's not really the Rhino that's creating this issue, it's usually the more expensive Razorback and Chimera that can dish out the pain on the move and be relatively comfortable about it while scoring. Razorback's approx. 60pts base, it's not so much cheap as cost effective, particularly when you buy less of those squishy, fairly useless, troops in both pts and real money.

Personally, I'd place my bets on infantry getting a boost in the core rules rather than any downgrade in transports, plus a chance in missions. If you think about the excellent point someone made above about earning a point from an objective every turn you occupy it, think about how good that makes a large block of infantry in cover in your deployment zone, just sitting there with a few heavy weapons. If the other rumour about all units being scoring and troops scoring double, consider what that means for those Devastator squads that aren't being brought currently.

alphastealer
05-11-2011, 15:38
I wouls like to see a few changes in 6th ed to fix the vehicle problem. A few of these changes could be:

1) One model per infantry squad can target a seperate unit/vehicle to the rest of the unit, nominated before any to-hit rolls are made.

This would allow the heavy weapon per squad to go after the 'big game' while the grunts shoot at other grunts.

2) An explodes result on the damage table casuses all occupants to be wounded on a 2+ with saves allowed. Disemabarked troops are automatically pinned. Vehicle wrecked troops are wounded on a 4+.and test for pinning.

This is more realistic. An exploding vehicle is going to kill most (if not all)troops.

3) Troops in vehicles with fire points or open topped can be affected by psychic powers from outside the vehicle. They can also be hit by small arms fire on 6+, (5+ for open topped), and then wounded as per normal. Troops in vehicles with a pressurised hull and no fire points cannot be affected.

An added option to #3 above is that in the new rules I would like to see vehicles get the option to close their fire point hatches or open them each turn in the movement phase.

Brother-Captain Endymion
05-11-2011, 20:49
There's an interesting idea.

+1 to damage chart if your firing slots are open?

Battleworthy Arts
05-11-2011, 21:34
For some reason, in 5th Edition, it is more dangerous to be in a wreck when the doors are blocked, than to be in an explosion.

Explosions should be fatal, or at least near-fatal.

Hendarion
05-11-2011, 22:18
Not really. Armor protects from explosions, that's what armor is made for. But if something squashes you (say a scrap press), how much use will be the armor be? None. That's what happens when a vehicle gets wrecked. It gets crushed and interior parts will find weird new locations.

sulla
05-11-2011, 22:24
For some reason, in 5th Edition, it is more dangerous to be in a wreck when the doors are blocked, than to be in an explosion.

Explosions should be fatal, or at least near-fatal.Most explosions in real life start with tell-tale burning beforehand, giving plenty of time to walk (run) away before BOOM-BOOM!.

Make vehicles more fragile when the firepoints are used 9open topped or whatever) and don't let models inside a transport claim objectives. Plus the psychic power thing should be a two way street. If you can use them, you can be affected by them. Rhinos (or whatever) shouldn't be built with industry-leading psychic shielding...

That way, transports still transport units well, but don't give them free benefits to be abused.

Chapters Unwritten
10-11-2011, 13:02
I don't really think it was abused as much as an intended change by GW. They do want us to buy those kits, after all. How many Razorbacks have they probably sold this year alone?

I think the problems are harder to identify than we think. I still feel very strongly that the problem is entirely with infantry having no advantages when alone. I think if you make units able to be harmed inside vehicles on occasion, along with giving infantry some more useful benefits (a negative BS modifier when shooting at small units, or units that run, maybe?), things would shift a little more toward them at least not hiding in the vehicles for the whole game.

Right now I think a bigger problem than fire points or cheap vehicles is simply that in a vehicle a unit is all but immortal and its stats become irrelevant defensively.

Haravikk
10-11-2011, 13:12
The main problems with dedicated transports in 5th are two things:
Firstly, they're Dedicated Transports! Magically Heavy Support or Fast Attack choices no longer take up force organisation slots. I'm hoping that force organisation slots are eliminated in favour of percentage points costs again, as this will curb a lot of current oddities, and if it means that vehicle costs count towards those limits then it may encourage players to think more about where they take them. Still, a lot of transports (the Rhino for one) are ridiculously cheap.

The second problem, and I think the one most easily addressed, is that there is no good way to hurt the passengers of a transport. Only the explosion result cause any damage, and it's not really that deadly. If penetration hits would inflict damage on passengers (say one hit for a 1-2 on damage table, D3 for a 3-4, and D6 for a 5-6) then there'd be more risk involved in putting your troops in a large target. This way players would be forced to balance the speed of deployment, over risk, as slogging through cover will be less dangerous overall, but may take too long to get combat troops or objective holders into position.

Either way, I really hope 6th edition makes transports less of a no-brainer, so that players have to think more about which units need to be in transports. That all said, I doubt GW particularly care, as the cheaper and more mandatory vehicles are, the more they sell =/

drear
10-11-2011, 13:23
i think the blood angels book got the transport cost correct, when they put a rhino at 50 points before upgrades.

if that was a standard rhino cost, and it progressed up from there, we'd see fewer trasnports , or smaller armies when relying on those transports.

50 for a rhino
65 for a razroback
75 for a fast rhino
80 for a fast razorback and so on.

landraiders are a great cost, its enough that you cant spam it, but its cheap enough that its not half the army list.

with guard, sure you pay 20 points or so more than a marine for your main transport, but that transport can have 4 shots out the top hatch and comes with a free heavy bolter and multilaser.
a rhino comes with 2 shots out of the hatch and a stormbolter..

chimeras need to be in the reagion of 60 points

Chapters Unwritten
10-11-2011, 13:42
I don't think any of those is worth those points. Believe it or not, I feel like the vehicles are costed right compared to 4th. You'd be arbitrarily raising the costs and shrinking armies, never really addressing the problem. People would still do it, even at higher points costs, because if you go on foot and encounter a guy who paid the points, he's still going to beat you 9/10 of the time.

The problem is that there's no reason to be on foot. GW just needs to make some!


The second problem, and I think the one most easily addressed, is that there is no good way to hurt the passengers of a transport. Only the explosion result cause any damage, and it's not really that deadly. If penetration hits would inflict damage on passengers (say one hit for a 1-2 on damage table, D3 for a 3-4, and D6 for a 5-6) then there'd be more risk involved in putting your troops in a large target. This way players would be forced to balance the speed of deployment, over risk, as slogging through cover will be less dangerous overall, but may take too long to get combat troops or objective holders into position.It doesn't even need to be that complicated. A special rule in an event I am running deals with this pretty nicely: if your transport gets a penetrating hit, the unit takes wounds equal to the vehicle damage chart roll. A slightly more damaging version is the unit takes dangerous terrain tests instead but I think the former is more appropriate as weaker units will be more vulnerable.

Either way, however, we still have the same problem: it's less dangerous to be in a vehicle than it is on foot. I think if we just gave vehicles a negative BS modifier to targets on foot that move, it would probably also serve the same purpose, but that could go too far in the wrong direction and also would heavily affect non-transport vehicles.

Haravikk
10-11-2011, 14:00
Either way, however, we still have the same problem: it's less dangerous to be in a vehicle than it is on foot.
Not if the hits inflicted are from a Multi-Melta or other anti-tank weapon; if you squad is suddenly at risk of being slapped with D6 Lascannon shots or similar, then you might just think twice about putting everything you have into vehicles, as at least on foot a single Lascannon would only inflict a single hit.

This would be partly balanced by having the vehicle count as hard cover for passenger hits, but it's still a greater risk than we have now, as a turn or two of shooting at the vehicle could ruin its passengers, even if the vehicle manages to survive.

I do like the idea of just using the damage table roll for number of hits though!

Chapters Unwritten
10-11-2011, 14:04
When we have the event we use that in, I will probably post some results here to see how it works out, heh.

Vaktathi
10-11-2011, 14:24
Inflicting hits on passengers in the manners described above would quickly turn them into deathtraps however. Remember how much more dangerous transports (well, at least *tracked* transports) were in 4E? Remember how many (non-skimmer) armies took transports as anything but mobile terrain in competitive armies? Aside from silly people like me who took lots of transports just because they like tanks, you almost never saw chimeras or rhinos, I don't think I ever saw a razorback during 4E or a Chimera in any other IG army but mine.

The change doesn't need to be to transports, it needs to be made to footsloggers. 40k has the fewest options of any wargame I can think of for infantry interacting with the board, there's no digging in, no reaction preparation, the only "hide" mechanism is going to ground when shot at (nothing that makes it harder to shoot at them), etc. Add mechanics to cover these sorts of things and all of a sudden infantry become far more attractive without making transports into deathtraps.

Chapters Unwritten
10-11-2011, 14:48
I agree that is a better way to handle things, it would be nice for the game to have some added depth as well.

Vaktathi
10-11-2011, 14:51
Yar, if there were a mechanism to do something like, instead of move-shoot-assault, they could spend the turn digging in and all of a sudden they now have a better cover save and require the opposing unit to bass a BS skill test to spot them and open fire (e.g. if the unit is BS4, the unit would roll a D6 and only on a 3+ could they shoot them).

Chapters Unwritten
10-11-2011, 14:56
I think BS modifiers for infantry units on the move would go a long way, too.

Supposedly both of these things are in 6th edition's rumoured ruleset.

chrisloomis13
10-11-2011, 15:03
What about a hit reaction, similar to a charge reaction in fantasy?

after a transport is hit, but before penetration roll, you have the option to have the squad bail out. If you bail out you have less chance of casualty, but won't be able to deploy out of the tank next turn after it moves. If you stay in, you have that option, but if the tank blows, more damage to the unit.

Also I feel there aren't enough casualties inflicted on squads inside a tank that explodes. I mean we're talking about a tank that exploded, not the destroyed result, but it is gone. How does anyone in that tank not get hit with some piece of shrapnel?

Vaktathi
10-11-2011, 15:20
What about a hit reaction, similar to a charge reaction in fantasy?

after a transport is hit, but before penetration roll, you have the option to have the squad bail out. If you bail out you have less chance of casualty, but won't be able to deploy out of the tank next turn after it moves. If you stay in, you have that option, but if the tank blows, more damage to the unit.

Also I feel there aren't enough casualties inflicted on squads inside a tank that explodes. I mean we're talking about a tank that exploded, not the destroyed result, but it is gone. How does anyone in that tank not get hit with some piece of shrapnel?
They do, that's why everyone inside effectively takes a bolter strength hit.

For many armies, an exploded transport is a very bad thing for the unit already, a unit of 10 guardsmen often is losing half its strength to an explosion. It only doesn't seem scary because marine units usually only take 1 or 2 casualties because the game is designed specifically to make Space Marines seem super-cool-mega-awesome-tough.

Hendarion
10-11-2011, 16:21
Yep, all those many Space Marines armies not only make the game boring, they also warp the impressions of the effectiveness of them. So many people play (only) Marines that they seam not to realize that non-Marine-armies have a way tougher game to play and are hurt by much more things than MEQ armies are.

Haravikk
10-11-2011, 16:50
Actually, while I covered two major issues with transport spam, it occurs to me that I forgot a third, which is when they're being used as mobile bunkers. I think that this could be solved by only allow weapons that count as Defensive Weapons to fire from firing slits, additionally excluding those with templates (I mean really, who fires a flame-thrower out of a tiny slit?)

Vaktathi
10-11-2011, 17:17
Actually, while I covered two major issues with transport spam, it occurs to me that I forgot a third, which is when they're being used as mobile bunkers. I think that this could be solved by only allow weapons that count as Defensive Weapons to fire from firing slits, additionally excluding those with templates (I mean really, who fires a flame-thrower out of a tiny slit?)

Have you not seen the big hatches on the backs of rhinos and chimeras? They're not just firing through tiny slits.

Additionally, many real life vehicles are designed to be fully capable of firing just about anything from hatches. British Warrior IFV's carry LAW's that can be fired from within the vehicle for instance, and you often see M-113's with mounted heavy machine guns set up on the top hatches.

Pyriel
10-11-2011, 17:23
i think a vry different issue is very interesting:
how will space marine and/or other razorspam armies work in 6th ed?...

it might sound strange to most, but in 4th ed, marines were very underpowered:
Eldar Flying Circus(skimmers moving fast rule abuse) was the best list.
Nidzilla and (believe it or not) Necrons made some very good armies, followed by Tau(again, skimmers moving fast rule abuse)
later on, Chaos oblits spam made its appearance(still overshadowed by Flying circus ofc).

space marines/dark angels/blood angels/black templars/space wolves/grey knights werent anywhere NEAR that level of competitiveness!!! like, maybe, just maybe, some "chapter traits abuse" led the main codex marines book to upper-mid tier(definitely not top tier).

this doesnt have to do with codexes( DA and white dwarf BA were relatively new) but with the *environment*: vehicles, esp transports, were pretty much nearworthless at best "necessary-evil deathtraps". hence, a rhino-based army suffered heavily...

so, dont take it for granted that today's marine armies(like BA/SW etc) will rule: imagine if transports become deathtraps again(extreme example) and how much power the tyranid codex suddenly gets... anyone else thinks that wether or not mech rules in 6th will have tremendous impact on *codex* balance, not just armylist building?...

a1elbow
10-11-2011, 17:43
The problem with most of these ideas is that they overhaul the rulesets and would, in the end, require rewrites of most of the rules.

For example, look at books or builds that need transports to function. If you nerf vehicles too much, the Sisters of Battle and any build focusing on short range shooting (i.e. Rapid Fire/Melta/Flamer/etc) will die off.

This has been the general strategy of GW when reworking their rules: they weaken what was strong and reinforce what was weak. Obviously, this ends up shifting what each Codex can do. A Codex from and edition where rules focus on one thing becomes outdated more from a rule change than a metagame shift.

What GW should do is work some minor changes on the core rules and write foot builds into new books that work. To some degree, they are. Most fifth edition books can produce a footlist that works. If Nids and daemons had been better written, this would have helped. Also, the sheer absurd number of Chimeras that Guard can field hurts the balance between foot and mech by giving them too many tanks while still being able to field infantry that can impact the game. Many guard lists from the book aren't broken, but some of the extreme lists (Stelek's here being a prime example of why that book is poorly written: http://yesthetruthhurts.com/2011/10/reality-check-dark-eldar-vs-imperial-guard/)

Necrons seem like they might produce some ok hybrid lists, although the close range nature of the ranged weapons might limit the effectiveness of lists not containing at least some HS vehicles.

The only couple of vehicle changes I think that are necessary is to make it so that skimmers are still difficult to hit in combat, but making tanks and trukks and so forth easier to hit.

Tanks might need to be slowed more going through terrain, but I'd rather see infantry to be less affected. To some degree it is realistic that a vehicle either makes it through or is stopped, but I don't see how it is fair that a squad that makes a couple of bad rolls in a role are stuck in a 4" woods for a third of the game. In a game that speed has become a huge weapon in, the difference between vehicles and infantry moving through terrain is huge (as a side note, it is silly easy to lose effectiveness in units of jump infantry and bikes in terrain as opposed to vehicles). Basic infantry could move 3+d3" through terrain.

Mostly, I don't want to see such a shift in focus that the current cycle of a new core ruleset limiting the viability of older books without exploiting loopholes. If GW would make their basic rules as simple as possible and let the individual army rules change things, books would become outdated less.

Oakwolf
10-11-2011, 17:46
Personally, i hope that assault will be more deadly to transported troops within.

The fact that you need to pop the vehicle during the shooting phase in order to assault the content shows how clunky the rule is, especially since they come out of the wreck completely unscathed and ready to flame/melta/assault you to death right afterward.

The reason i was exposed to that problem is simply that there is so limited anti armor shooting in the daemon army (Tzeentch only)

AlphariusOmegon20
10-11-2011, 18:18
I think some of the posters on here (and GW in general) are misunderstanding what APC's/IFV's are actually used for.

They are glorified taxis with guns. They are force multipliers, when heavier armor is not available for in the same role.

IFV's and APC's are generally used to get you TO the battle. Once you get there, then you GET OUT and and begin Infantry maneuvers, using the IFV/APC as cover. Will it protect you from small arms fire? Yes it will. Will it protect you from an RPG being shot at and hitting the IFV? Nope, and anyone that says it will hasn't been in a real firefight against an RPG and hasn't seen how it turns a IFV inside out.

Simply from a game perspective, You'd use the Rhino/Chimera/whatnot to get to the game field. You'd then get OUT and maneuver the field on foot.

The basic tactics of combined arms warfare has not changed since the Tank was first introduced in WW1. I have no expectation that those basic tactics would change any 40K years in the future.

As a side note, I think GW also gets tank armor wrong too. A realistic Pred would be 13/12/12, not 13/11/10. ( armored vehicles generally have their weakest armor underneath, not in the rear. They are weaker in the rear than in their front, but they're still more than what GW is saying they are. Also the LR is wrong. It should be 14/13/13, not 14 everywhere.)

ColShaw
10-11-2011, 18:49
If they just scrapped the "Emergency Disembark" rules I'd be a lot happier. The enemy outmaneuvers you so thoroughly that your vehicle is entirely surrounded, blocking all the exits, then blows it up... and you can still survive? Huh?

Vaktathi
10-11-2011, 19:20
I think some of the posters on here (and GW in general) are misunderstanding what APC's/IFV's are actually used for.

They are glorified taxis with guns. They are force multipliers, when heavier armor is not available for in the same role.

IFV's and APC's are generally used to get you TO the battle. Once you get there, then you GET OUT and and begin Infantry maneuvers, using the IFV/APC as cover. Will it protect you from small arms fire? Yes it will. Will it protect you from an RPG being shot at and hitting the IFV? Nope, and anyone that says it will hasn't been in a real firefight against an RPG and hasn't seen how it turns a IFV inside out.

Simply from a game perspective, You'd use the Rhino/Chimera/whatnot to get to the game field. You'd then get OUT and maneuver the field on foot.

The basic tactics of combined arms warfare has not changed since the Tank was first introduced in WW1. I have no expectation that those basic tactics would change any 40K years in the future.

As a side note, I think GW also gets tank armor wrong too. A realistic Pred would be 13/12/12, not 13/11/10. ( armored vehicles generally have their weakest armor underneath, not in the rear. They are weaker in the rear than in their front, but they're still more than what GW is saying they are. Also the LR is wrong. It should be 14/13/13, not 14 everywhere.)

APC's are typically battle taxi's that simply get the infantry from A to B. Many IFV's can be fought from while embarked. That's what made BMP so scary to NATO when it first appeared because they could engage many positions with integrated weapons without having to expose the infantry to small arms fire. It's why stuff like Warriors have LAW's on board that can be fire from within the vehicle through the top hatch, and why you'll see BMP's being used with RPG's in much the same way, or M-113 APC's that were used as basically mobile machine gun bunkers with multiple HMG's mounted to the back and fired from the rear hatch during Vietnam and other conflicts

http://digilander.libero.it/lagunaricrespino/M113.jpg
http://www.combatreform.org/acavarmuniversal.jpg
http://www.reocities.com/armysappersforward/zeldatroophatch.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b4/M113IraqiFreedom.jpg

AlphariusOmegon20
11-11-2011, 05:45
APC's are typically battle taxi's that simply get the infantry from A to B. Many IFV's can be fought from while embarked. That's what made BMP so scary to NATO when it first appeared because they could engage many positions with integrated weapons without having to expose the infantry to small arms fire. It's why stuff like Warriors have LAW's on board that can be fire from within the vehicle through the top hatch, and why you'll see BMP's being used with RPG's in much the same way, or M-113 APC's that were used as basically mobile machine gun bunkers with multiple HMG's mounted to the back and fired from the rear hatch during Vietnam and other conflicts

http://digilander.libero.it/lagunaricrespino/M113.jpg
http://www.combatreform.org/acavarmuniversal.jpg
http://www.reocities.com/armysappersforward/zeldatroophatch.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b4/M113IraqiFreedom.jpg

Speaking as someone that actually USED those M231 FPW's before they got rid of most of them on the Bradley, let me tell you this: They're crap.

The mounts were crap and you never really had a good sight picture. Why they kept the back ones is beyond me. To further the problem, M193 ball was only to used in an emergency, and using the 62 gr. ball or tracer would get you into a heap of trouble. The weapon itself left a lot to be desired also.

I've also seen the inside of a BMP-1, and let me tell you - it had the same deficiencies with the firing ports that the Bradley did. Crap mounts, bad angles of fire and inadequate space to gain a better angle due to the limits of depression and sweep. Why they've still kept the firing ports on the BMP-3 is also beyond me. I can honestly say you'll get more kills using the PKT's on it than you ever will with the stupid firing ports.

Vaktathi
11-11-2011, 05:50
Having been in a BMP I wouldn't even want to try shooting out of it while the damn thing is moving, much less with other people, but it's still something that's *there*, and the top hatches are perfectly serviceable doing basically what the Chimera's top hatch abstracts as long as you don't mind being knocked around a bit. Certainly nothing less silly than many of the other things in 40k, especially if you're assuming use of the hatches more than the awful mounted guns.

Never had the chance to sit in a bradely or deal with the gun ports, but the BMP was an interesting experience. (and that's why I own 16 chimeras...)

rocdocta
11-11-2011, 07:12
Having been in a BMP I wouldn't even want to try shooting out of it while the damn thing is moving, much less with other people, but it's still something that's *there*, and the top hatches are perfectly serviceable doing basically what the Chimera's top hatch abstracts as long as you don't mind being knocked around a bit. Certainly nothing less silly than many of the other things in 40k, especially if you're assuming use of the hatches more than the awful mounted guns.

Never had the chance to sit in a bradely or deal with the gun ports, but the BMP was an interesting experience. (and that's why I own 16 chimeras...)

i hear you! having fired live rounds with a minimi out of an apc, the results were at best funny ie missed with most when parked up, at worst would be all most as dangerous for friendlies in the area when moving! Bounced around inside whilst trying to hold on and fire. good times.

its why i still dont get that you can fire only 1 vehicle str5+ weapon on the move if its locked down in the vehicle mount...but a chimera can fire 4 str8 meltas on the move. but its a game mechanic...not real life.

orkmiester
11-11-2011, 09:09
I don't think GW will change it too much... after all 'most' of us have gone and brought transports so why would they want that to stop:angel::shifty:

i think this suggestion partly hits the nail on the head

by Chapters unwritten


40k has the fewest options of any wargame I can think of for infantry interacting with the board, there's no digging in, no reaction preparation, the only "hide" mechanism is going to ground when shot at (nothing that makes it harder to shoot at them), etc. Add mechanics to cover these sorts of things and all of a sudden infantry become far more attractive without making transports into deathtraps.

i concur here- after playing infinity the disparity is plainly seen- cover plays an active roll in limiting the effects of firepower- of course infinity is a completley different game. But if similar but streamlined rules were introduced in 40k then it would be a toss up about mobility in transports or having better protecion in cover...

i reckon GW did a 'quantum leap' with 5th ed- vehicle firepower went up but the firepower of the infantry didn't:eyebrows: that needs addressing as well, i reckon the weapon rules need 'messing' with, take rapid fire for example. Its a bit silly that you can 'rapid fire' then take no advantage of the situation afterwards, assault weapons are better as at least you can still get into CC after shooting- if you could say shoot boltguns/lasguns then move afterwards (but no assault) i think it would make things better...

then of course heavy weapons need addressing as well- i'll use infinty again as an example;) i can move my machine gunner then shoot him at full effect at a target- taking into account any cover/range to target... now with the trusty heavy bolter (similar sort of weapon...) on a devastator you have to either shoot or move:wtf: thats partly the reason you don't see them much- moving (which could get you into a better shooting position...) removes the advantage of their range and firepower, then again standing there gives you the firepower but it puts you at inherent risk of that blast weapon or two heading their way:rolleyes: Perhaps a 'fix' could be to give heavy weapon troopers the relentless rule? though you wouldn't be able to assault after shooting of course...

in my opinion that would make infantry on foot 'better' than currently- you could go on the attack or be defensive meanwhile not losing much for moving and it would probably make devastators etc come back...

then the subject of transports and vehicles...

i reckon vehicles need different classifications to help distinguish them- perhaps an introduction of a 'transport' class would help- keep the current damage tables etc but make 'transports' more vunlerable by say giving str 7/8/9 weapons +1 on the table? but keeping meltas at +1... though give BS modifiers as well so that DE etc are harder to hit when they move 12" or something like that to counteract the already 'squishy' nature of their transports. Probably a 'rough' idea but that would be my solution

just my insights on it...

Bunnahabhain
11-11-2011, 09:33
its why i still dont get that you can fire only 1 vehicle str5+ weapon on the move if its locked down in the vehicle mount...but a chimera can fire 4 str8 meltas on the move. but its a game mechanic...not real life.

Possibly due to the slow speed passengers can move an fire at- it doesn't represent moving along at little more than walking speed, it's actually a quick dash to somewhere, then a brief pause to allow the passengers to fire. Especially if you can just about see enough to identify possible targets whilst being bounced about, but you need 5 seconds standing still to actually hit them.

Something like that actually made sense to me, and doesn't clash badly with real life.

Hendarion
11-11-2011, 14:44
Why does a game-mechanic have to simulate real-life anyway? That's beyond me.

Flikre213
11-11-2011, 15:23
Personally I quite like all this mech, as a necron player it amuses me. But I can see how there is too much of it around

Not really adding something to the discussion but still...

"Have you heard about the word?
Everyone knows gauss is the word..." (Dances)

SunTzu
11-11-2011, 15:24
Why does a game-mechanic have to simulate real-life anyway? That's beyond me.

Different game but still relevant: http://thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/dissociated-mechanics.html

Friedrich von Offenbach
11-11-2011, 23:38
I always find it strange that everyone on the internet talks about everyone using mechanised armies because in my gaming group the most transports any one player has is 6(dark eldar) folowed by a person with 2 land raiders

Ulrig
12-11-2011, 00:08
Transports won't "suck" but they will do what they are meant to, Protect troops from small arms and get blown the hell up by heavy weapons.

Am I missing something here.....
Is that not what happens now?

How in the world does heavy weapons not turn AV 11/12 into a chevy volt that caught on fire? My lootas with Strength 7 tear transports up all day long with ease....that is strength 7 coming from a army that virtually has no anti-mech besides pk nobs.

SideshowLucifer
13-11-2011, 00:57
From what I have seen I'd be willing to bet that firing from a transport will have reduced range and/or reduced BS. All non-tank vehicles will suffer the same +1 to the damage chart that open-top suffers. Lastly, nothing will be scoring while within a vehicle.

Those three things where in playtesting awhile back. I'm not sure what the results where, but I think those would help level the field a bit.

Brotheroracle
13-11-2011, 02:32
Metal Boxes for your squishy troops makes GW money, lots of it. Example:
Rhino $33- less then 50 points
Tac squad $37.5 (something like that) around 160 points

If GW likes money then we can expect Tanks to be good.
I doubt 6th will be the edition of the foot list.
I don't mind the mech enviroment, it's the future if you are flying around in space ships then your army can afford a tank or two.

Bunnahabhain
13-11-2011, 10:02
From what I have seen I'd be willing to bet that:
firing from a transport will have reduced range and/or reduced BS.
All non-tank vehicles will suffer the same +1 to the damage chart that open-top suffers.
Lastly, nothing will be scoring while within a vehicle.

Those three things where in playtesting awhile back. I'm not sure what the results where, but I think those would help level the field a bit.

Ahh, the good old triple nerf, that misses. GW at their most typical.

Banning scoring from vehicles hurts Guard, Eldar, and other armies with fragile troops far, far more than marines. At least Orks and Guard can run infantry heavy to deal with it, and say shift these 30 strong units. Eldar( both) and Tau? Not so much.

+1 damage for not being a tank? Because Open topped trukks/DE stuff are the problem, and cheap rhinos, razorbacks and chimeras are not? And dreadnaughts aren't fragile enough compared to MCS already. Or a possible reaction to Psyrifl;emen that goes over the top, another GW favorite...

Reduced range/BS. As that's really going to stop units closing up to 6" to flamer/melta/plasma stuff. However, trying to put you Guard HWS or Ork Lootas into a transport, to make them less fragile? Nope, too powerful, let's stop it.

I really hope those rumours are simply wrong. They're clearly very badly balanced, unless all you ever play is marine vs marine, in which case they're merely quite badly balanced.

Give infantry the ability to interact with the board more- that'll help fix mech.

Or even, make any vehicles/MCs above Size x ( write a list to make it clear, and make large target a rule)a large target, and get +1 BS when shooting at it? No racial bias there, at least.

Hendarion
13-11-2011, 14:56
Give infantry the ability to interact with the board more- that'll help fix mech.
Yea. Afaik this also will be done.


Or even, make any vehicles/MCs above Size x ( write a list to make it clear, and make large target a rule)a large target, and get +1 BS when shooting at it? No racial bias there, at least.
No, there still is a bias. Marines using BS5 instead of BS4 means they will miss only in 50% of the cases they do now (1/6 instead of 2/6). Orks on BS3 instead of BS2 will only miss 25% more often than they do now (3/6 instead of 4/6). That means armies with low BS benefit less from such a change than armies with a high BS. Means Marines will start to own Tyranids, but Orks won't.

Bunnahabhain
13-11-2011, 18:04
Yea. Afaik this also will be done.


No, there still is a bias. Marines using BS5 instead of BS4 means they will miss only in 50% of the cases they do now (1/6 instead of 2/6). Orks on BS3 instead of BS2 will only miss 25% more often than they do now (3/6 instead of 4/6). That means armies with low BS benefit less from such a change than armies with a high BS. Means Marines will start to own Tyranids, but Orks won't.

??? Although your percentages are correct ( barring one highlighted typo) they are totally irrelevant. Unless you are BS5 already, 1/6th more of your total shots hit.

Actually, armies with low BS gain more from +1 BS, as they're designed round a larger volume of less accurate shots.

Let us suppose we have some shooting units, all with the same gun.
30 shots @BS2 = 10 hits
20 @ BS3 = 10 hits
15 @ BS4 = 10
Add +1BS, and those same units generate.
30@ BS2+1 = 15 hits
20@ BS 3+1 = 13.333 hits
15 @BS4+1 = 12.5 hits


Re-rolls do vary in effectiveness based directly on you BS. For one shot, adding a re-roll: BS2 and 4 gain 2/9 extra hits, BS3 gains 1/4, and BS5 a mere 5/36 extra hits

Zinch
13-11-2011, 18:06
No, there still is a bias. Marines using BS5 instead of BS4 means they will miss only in 50% of the cases they do now (1/6 instead of 2/6). Orks on BS3 instead of BS2 will only miss 25% more often than they do now (3/6 instead of 4/6). That means armies with low BS benefit less from such a change than armies with a high BS. Means Marines will start to own Tyranids, but Orks won't.

ANY change you do to the core rules will benefit some armies more than others. Is imposible not to. But you can try to not make the difference too big.

I think just one or two simple changes would do it. Just make transports that, transports and not bunkers. For example, if you destroy a vehicle in assault you automaticaly engage the unit inside and a with an "explosion" result you go to ground without a Ld test (additionaly to the damage taken).

With this simple changes (for example), you don't make transports unusable, but makes them more reasonable.

Paul Nexus
13-11-2011, 19:40
I'm weary of how transport rules will change as some armies, like DE, are very reliant on them due to fragility and not having the range/numbers of orks or guard.

Rywhandar
13-11-2011, 21:02
One thing that can be done for transports, and other vehicles, is balancing the costs.
Being both a SM and DE player, I have to say it's not balanced.
35 points for a Rhino that might stand a chance from a hail of bolter shots, and 60 points for a Raider that has the same chance of surviving as a wet cardboard box?

OK, you get a dark lance on the Raider, but it's still expensive compared to the other armies.

So a bit more balancing in this department will make it a bit more fair at least.

Personally, I hope to see a bit more infantery tactics in 6e, since now it feels like the one who gets to fire first win.

sroblin
13-11-2011, 22:18
I believe there is very little evidence IRL that troops on the battlefield have used the ball mount fire ports on modern IFVs- I think this was a design element that was much hyped when it was developed, but then proved impractical to actually use in combat. (The vehicle needs to be positioned with its side armor exactly facing the enemy- better hope they don't have any RPGs- and the soldier has to squint through a tiny viewport.) I think the feature was removed in later American vehicles because it was concluded to be more of a hazard to friendly troops than an effective feature.

Firing infantry weapons from open top or open-hatch vehicles is another story, of course, and continues to be widely practiced. But dual-melta pot shots from Rhino APCs has no real-life parallel, and I feel it kind of lets players have their cake and eat it, rather than have to choose whether to protect the infantry or benefit from their weapons.

I think the west feared the introduction of BMPs in the 1970s mostly because they mounted a serious anti-tank weapon on an APC that was being deployed in large numbers, whereas most APCs before that had a heavy machine gun at most.

itcamefromthedeep
14-11-2011, 02:36
I have a lot of thread to catch up on. Don't worry about TLDR issues, I cover a bunch of subjects here.


There's a reason they are so common amongst modern armies. They are better than troops on foot because not only are they fast, but they protect the troops from being shot at.

"August 06, 2011|By Laura King, Ken Dilanian and David S. Cloud, Los Angeles Times

Reporting from Kabul, Afghanistan, and Washington Their name conjures up the most celebrated moment of America's post-Sept. 11 military campaigns. Now the Navy SEALs belong to a grimmer chapter in history: the most deadly incident for U.S. forces in the 10-year Afghanistan war.

Three months after they killed Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in neighboring Pakistan and cemented their place in military legend, the SEALs suffered a devastating loss when nearly two dozen of the elite troops were among 30 Americans who died when their helicopter was shot down in Afghanistan early Saturday."

Sitting in a transport is dangerous. I pray that we don't get another such demonstration. With Veteran's Day in the US and Remembrance Day in Canada just past, take a moment to remember those lost in defense of our people.


I'm fairly certain that GW will shake things up enough to make everyone re-tool their armies. Making transports suck again is a reasonable expectation, as is a change to scoring units so people drop their Troops and buy something else.Looking at the newer releases it's hard to think that GW was really pushing hard for people to buy Praetorians over the years-old Scarabs that everyone has in spades.

Sometimes the new models are good, and sometimes those models are awful (re: Pyrovore). Sometimes the armies get bigger, and other times they get smaller (re: Draigo-wing). They like selling models, but they try to do it by making fun rules.


The whole vehicle rules need scrapping, and re-writing from the ground up, so they're much better integrated into the core rules. Then we might not end up with vehicles being king, or being coffins, but balanced.I like the way that big models are dealth with in Battlefleet Gothic and Epic. They work like multi-Wound models, but when they suffer damage they might take a critical hit with its own special table. In the context of 40k, it would be like super-heavy vehicles except with toughness and an armor save rather than armor values. Different saves depending on the facing can still be included.


I think I can recall each and every Eldar tank in 4E that I killed, three and a half years on, that says something.Oh, the bad old days. I remember playing against Tau in Devilfish and how lame it was to fight transports back then.


It doesn't even need to be that complicated. A special rule in an event I am running deals with this pretty nicely: if your transport gets a penetrating hit, the unit takes wounds equal to the vehicle damage chart roll.I'd definitely want to see some playtesting on that, but is seems like a reasonable idea on the face of it. Perhaps only on the killing hit. The chance of losing troops due to vulnerability of being in a transport is the only way that Rhino's price makes sense.


Inflicting hits on passengers in the manners described above would quickly turn them into deathtraps however. Remember how much more dangerous transports (well, at least *tracked* transports) were in 4E? Remember how many (non-skimmer) armies took transports as anything but mobile terrain in competitive armies?Entanglement was a big reason for that.

Infantry interacting with the terrain is also doable. Bookkeeping requirements are a reason to avoid it.


For many armies, an exploded transport is a very bad thing for the unit already, a unit of 10 guardsmen often is losing half its strength to an explosion.Probably not the half with the meltaguns. In any case, doing a number of wounds rather than hits of a given Strength would probably make it feel less bad for the non-MEQ armies (like my Eldar).


As a side note, I think GW also gets tank armor wrong too. A realistic Pred would be 13/12/12, not 13/11/10. ( armored vehicles generally have their weakest armor underneath, not in the rear. They are weaker in the rear than in their front, but they're still more than what GW is saying they are. Also the LR is wrong. It should be 14/13/13, not 14 everywhere.)
The rear armor also tends to represent the armor underneath when it comes up. There have been a number of tanks that have weaker rear armor than side armor. Considering how often I get to shoot at the rear armor of a vehicle, weaker armor there seems reasonable.

Respectfully, I don't think you or I know how well-armored a Land Raider is on the side and rear. What we *can* say is that it's not a maximally efficient distribution.

---

There are a number of things that could be done to bring transports back to an appropriate place in the game. Some examples:

If a unit passes its morale test against a tank shock, then the tank stops at the unit. The unit then gets to pile in and attack the tank (vehicles attacking infantry unsupported can end very badly if the troops are equipped to fight it). If a Daemon Prince can't barrel its way through some Scarabs, then tanks should get no special treatment either. Combats are an abstraction anyway.

If a vehicle disengages with a unit or is destroyed, the unit gets to consolidate. This would mitigate the problem of victorious troops getting munched by template weapons in the following player turn.

Troops in base contact with a vehicle are considered to be engaged and cannot be shot at, just as they would be with a Dreadnought. An exception can be made for the vehicle under attack, which should feel free to shoot at the infantry in front of it (or even shoot at something else if it feels like ignoring the Nurglings nipping at its heels).

Being in a transport doesn't in and of itself make you immune to anything (such as psychic powers, psychic hoods, Shadow in the Warp, etc.). This "passengers are immune" principle appears in the FAQs alone and has no actual basis in the BRB, so the amendment wouldn't actually require any BRB changes. Some little stuff like "line of sight and line of effect cannot be drawn to passengers" and "passengers do not move except to disembark" would clarify a bunch of interactions currently covered in FAQs. Base psychology rules should handle failed morale tests for units in a transport (this can come up now with troops dying to Perils of the Warp but remains unaccounted for in the rules and FAQs). Before you ask, the Doom of Malan'tai is badly-written, and deserves it's own nerfing amendment. Standing on top of a Trukk rather than beside it should offer no special protection from something like Doom.

Hitting a vehicle that moved in close combat requires a 4+ no matter how fast the vehicle moved. Bikes and jetbikes get no such benefit as getting hit on 6s after turbo boosting, so it seems only fair for vehicles.

None of that sounds particularly punitive to me. It hits all vehicles, but it's the transports that most often get into the thick of things and motor towards objectives for contesting purposes, where killy vehicles tend to move more slowly so that they can shoot. I play Marines, Eldar and yes, Tyranids.

Aluinn
14-11-2011, 13:09
Looking at the newer releases it's hard to think that GW was really pushing hard for people to buy Praetorians over the years-old Scarabs that everyone has in spades.

Sometimes the new models are good, and sometimes those models are awful (re: Pyrovore). Sometimes the armies get bigger, and other times they get smaller (re: Draigo-wing). They like selling models, but they try to do it by making fun rules.


Amen. I think the conventional internet wisdom that GW uses game balance as a marketing ploy is absolute bunk, born of a few coincidences of new models being released for very powerful units, and of the occasional nerfing of old models (though there are usually other, more likely explanations; e.g. Carnifexes were overnerfed in the latest 'Nids codex, but the competitive Tyranid build in the previous book consisted largely of Carnifexes which clearly suggested to GW that they needed a big nerf), but mostly of pure unthinking cynicism.

Hey, internet wargaming community, check it out: GW does a lot of things to try to sell you models, many of which you may not like. They release a White Dwarf which is often a glorified catalogue. They relentlessly pimp everything new on their website and hype everything to the nines (Finecast models being "the finest quality miniatures in the world", for example), and they tend to portray the newest releases as being their best in general. Apparently, though I've never been in one myself, it's hard to enter some GW stores without someone trying to sell you a Baneblade.

However, there is no actual evidence that they overpower or underpower things in the rules in order to sell models (and, no, a new model being powerful rules-wise does not count as evidence in itself; if 90% of new models had awesome rules and 90% of old models got nerfed rules in new codexes, that would be evidence, but it is plainly and simply not the case, as itcamefromthedeep just pointed out).

And how short can your memories be, really? Transports are expensive on a points-per-currency basis, and yes, they were hugely buffed in 5th Ed. ... but they were hugely nerfed in 4th Ed. from what they were in 3rd. All evidence suggests that GW is simply having trouble finding the right balance with their transport rules and is continuously overcompensating in one direction then the other--that's not a money-grubbing scheme.

So, based on this, my prediction is that 6th Ed. will see transports nerfed in some way, and my hope is that they finally get them relatively well-balanced, which the experience of 4th Ed. should be a big help with. Obviously GW wants you to be able to play mech, and they also want you to be able to play footslogging armies; their ideal is probably that whatever floats your boat should be a viable way to build an army, almost regardless of which army you play, even--though of course 'Nids will always be footslogging and Marines will tend to be biased slightly towards mech. This is the way that they will both please their customers and sell more models.

Caitsidhe
14-11-2011, 18:50
The larger problem, and no doubt why transports are so cheap, is that vehicles are easier to kill these days than anything else. I don't really have any harder a time killing Land Raiders than I do Transports so I might as well use the damn, cheap transports. Games Workshop doesn't really test their systems before they put them out (at least not that I can discern) and their staggered (over years) release of other books which aren't done in context to the others only aggravates the issue more. If they make vehicles more expensive, they would have to get more survivable, not less. Making vehicles easier to hit in the next edition be funny since they aren't actually that hard to hit now. Hitting the vehicles isn't the problem. The pass fail question is whether or not you are using a Melta-Gun or other appropriate vehicle killing weapon.

There is no simple solution to the problems offered because it is a system-wide issue of game balance. Unless Games Workshop actually embraces the notion of game balance in the next edition (and we all know they won't) all we will see is some weird pendulum shift one way radically in another direction or perhaps they will double down and just make the problems more extreme. I think we would all like to see a logical pricing scheme, a reasonable release schedule, and game mechanics that have at least been tested play tested before printed, but we all know that isn't going to happen.

TheMav80
14-11-2011, 23:14
I think people really need to stop saying "Mech Spam" and say what they really mean, "Imperial Transport Spam"

Azalthor
16-11-2011, 11:47
I like the idea of making transports more expensive
(except for eldars of course, they are in a bad spot)

More hits to crew is a good way to go in my mind
Here's what I got

Make it so that if the transport has fire points, it is therefor more vulnerable
Flamers from very close would hit the people inside
if open topped: S of weapon
if not: S-1

They would also be vulnerable to grenades
being able to toss grenades trough the firepoints (one for one)
for say S of grenade to D3+1 models per firepoint

ranged fire hitting shooters from last round in the firepoints

I hope the next damage table will be deadlier