PDA

View Full Version : >hull points-epic fail GW!



Pages : [1] 2 3 4

mughi3
01-07-2012, 21:04
My gaming group sat down and spent a good half the day saturday going through the new rulebook. alot of it looks very nice with a homage to second editon rules as well as some fantasy imports.

Let me say first off that i understand GWs business model. they push the new shiny models via rules making the more traditonal choices less desirable. we usually refer to it as the "nerf bat". however given how our playtesting games went tonight i am going to say they tossed out the nerf bat and went straight to thunder hammer.

There are lots of things about 6th ed i like but thats for another thread-

The main point of contention here is the death of ground vehicles-

With vehicles the pro's are pretty narrow now.
.you can move always and shoot all guns- snap fire when neccisary(BS1)

The down side-
.you look at a vehicle funny and it dies. there is no need to even do any real damage given the hull point system. they have effectively given vehicles wound points and then made it very easy to inflict wounds in addition to actual damage on a damage chart.-double the ding

.it does not matter how hard they are to hit in CC now, it doesn't even matter much how far they have moved...now it is all about WS1-IE you hit vehicles on 3s at the worst. basically if you assault any vehicle including walkers they die.

.the actual damage chart got scarier thanks to changes to AP1/2

.it makes some vehicle upgrades pointless as my eldar playing friend discovered...whats the point of spending points on hollowfields when i just glance you to death?(thats a mere 3 hits against AV12)


As a group we are mulling over what to do to return even a margin of resiliancy to vehicles in general(i lost an ironclad dread walking through a carniverous forest and almost lost a second in the same spot). as it stands now anything that isn't a flyer(harder to shoot and cannot be assaulted) will die the moment you put it on the table. i lost nearly my entire armies vehicles to glancing hits that did no actual damage.


We are looking at 2 options-
.increase the hull points by X3 to give vehicles a fighting chance or just go back to the 5th ed damage chart while using the new AP rules.


As it stand now i see the game being dominated by bikes, jump infantry, monsterous creatures and fliers

Kijamon
01-07-2012, 21:09
I think you're entirely 100% wrong but I guess it's different strokes for different folks. I love the new rules.

Land raiders should not take 12 glances to die. Tanks should not be very survivable and should be supported by a fair bit of infantry.

I hope your gaming group finds a solution so you enjoy your games in future though, good luck.

Scammel
01-07-2012, 21:14
So much hyperbole. The trade-off hull points offer is that vehicles can remain operative for much longer as glances don't render them unable to shoot half the time. Furthermore, the vehicles more vulnerable to this kind of destruction are cheaper anyway - if you're trying to get 3 glances on a Chimera I'll happily be gunning the engines of the remaining four right at you. The more expensive vehicles are harder to glance anyway, have fun getting 4 glances on a Land Raider and it's ilk turn one.


basically if you assault any vehicle including walkers they die.


Including walkers? When most of 'em boast armour 12?

brightblade
01-07-2012, 21:16
I think you're entirely 100% wrong but I guess it's different strokes for different folks. I love the new rules.

Land raiders should not take 12 glances to die. Tanks should not be very survivable and should be supported by a fair bit of infantry.

I hope your gaming group finds a solution so you enjoy your games in future though, good luck.

This. In a bucket. :)

xxRavenxx
01-07-2012, 21:24
I personally love hullpoints. No more penetrating six times only to fail to get a high roll to finish something off. It now has a limit, which is important on AV14 especially.

Smithpod68
01-07-2012, 21:27
How do hull points work in 6th ed?

Souleater
01-07-2012, 21:27
OP...have you guys actually played a game yet? :confused:

At least give it a try and see how the thing works as a whole.

ForgottenLore
01-07-2012, 21:30
I also think the hull point mechanic is a really good one, but I was expecting vehicles to, in general, have a few more points, like 3 for the light vehicles like speeders, up to 4-5 for heavy tanks and maybe 6 for monoliths. That said, I haven't actually played with it yet, and presumably the designers played SOME (maybe?) so maybe I am just radically mis-estimating the effect.

sonsoftherock
01-07-2012, 21:32
Note also that the damage chart is now worse for any weapon worse than AP2, cover is easier to get (25%) and unless I am mistaken vehicles can now claim cover saves for being behind infantry models.

I agree that Hull points make them easier to kill but I think a few games will be needed to see how it all shakesdown.

Vepr
01-07-2012, 21:47
One of the few bright spots for assault armies. If it was not for this change you could hang up assault armies like nids, daemons and orks completely. It still does not stop vehiciles from putting out a lot of fire power and actually in some ways vehicles suadrons got even tougher and can somewhat play wound allocation with movement putting unglanced tanks to the front etc.

Silentbob10
01-07-2012, 21:47
Well i had my first game today and me and my opponent deliberately took a few different choices such as tanks, jump infantry and librarians. So my dreadnought charges 10 assault marines with an 11 inch charge (which i find quite fun lol) i kill two and then proceed to be killed by the returning krak grenades. 5 hit 3 glanced so taking my hull points and wrecking me. I suppose it did seem quite quick but i can defiantly see it leading to more of a swing towards infantry supporting tanks in numbers instead of the common sight of as many tanks as possible in 5th. And although i lost that dred i know its the start of something fun and good. Long live 6th (or at least till 7th)

Voss
01-07-2012, 21:50
Yes, multiple glances now are an effective way to kill something.
On the other hand, the change to glances mean vehicles are more likely to be fully effective up until they are wrecked.

Personally, I like it. There were a fair number of armies that didn't have access to vehicle-killing weapons, and struggled horribly. Now they aren't given the 'thanks for playing' kick in the teeth when faced with a vehicle wall.

KitKat
01-07-2012, 21:58
Anti Tank weapons being efficient at killing tanks sound like a positive to me.

mughi3
01-07-2012, 22:13
Ok let me hit this point by point
"1.Land raiders should not take 12 glances to die. Tanks should not be very survivable and should be supported by a fair bit of infantry. "

a glancing hit does minimal damage i counter that it should not take 4 paint scratches to kill a 300 point model without actually having to work at it.

the point of armored vehicles is to make them more survivable, as it stands now a guardsman has a better survival rate in 6th ed than a land raider.



"2.So much hyperbole. The trade-off hull points offer is that vehicles can remain operative for much longer as glances don't render them unable to shoot half the time. Furthermore, the vehicles more vulnerable to this kind of destruction are cheaper anyway - if you're trying to get 3 glances on a Chimera I'll happily be gunning the engines of the remaining four right at you. The more expensive vehicles are harder to glance anyway, have fun getting 4 glances on a Land Raider and it's ilk turn one."

So much ignorance. have you even play tested it yet?
it is extremely easy to get glancing hits. my land raider achilles which usually at least survives most games died to eldar pulse lasers on turn 2 that wasnt even a large part of my opponants firepower. i returned the favor with tactical marines assaulting his warp hunter the following turn with grenades and a power weapon didn'y even need to use my PF attacks. a chimera can now die to bolter fire. what your failing to get is that yes they can move and shoot-cool beans, however the moment they get shot at they die so they do not stay "operative" longer.

"3.Including walkers? When most of 'em boast armour 12?"

grenades and melta bombs plant on WS at initiative(well MB are unweildy so I1 for them, not that it matters much given the would allocation system in 6th) and immobilised dreads are hit on rear armor. remember you do not actually have to do any real damage to them just glance them a mere 3 times-dead walkers in 1 turn of CC.


"4.I personally love hullpoints. No more penetrating six times only to fail to get a high roll to finish something off. It now has a limit, which is important on AV14 especially. "

A vehicle is comparatively expensive and has effectively 1 wound so yes i expect you to have to work at it to kill it compared to a monsterous creature that keeps on unhunged until you take all 4-6 of its wounds. the problem now it that you do "wounds" without actually doing any damage to every vehicle. and the wound count is extemely small giving vehicles no resliance and a waste of resources to even place on the table.

"5 How do hull points work in 6th ed? "

every vehicle has 2-4 hull points most have 3, thereis no glance damage table now a glance-loose a hull point, a pen loose a hull point AND take additonal damage. effectively your vehicle dies the turn it hits the table. the only reason any of my vehicles lasted to turn 6 is that i had 3 tech marines running around with servitors trying to save anything i could that didn't die immediately.

"6.OP...have you guys actually played a game yet?

At least give it a try and see how the thing works as a whole. "

Been playing 40K for over 10 years, i run late night gaming at my local store, i am usually there for 14+ hours so yes we got several play test games in as well as my ability to compare my 5th ed experience with how that translates to 6th.

My last game of 5th against necrons that went 7 turns last weekend which i won by a 2KP to 7KP margin i would have lost on turn 3 by the 6th ed rules simply based on the number of glancing hits i took since i run a themed mechanised siege list.

"7.That said, I haven't actually played with it yet, and presumably the designers played SOME (maybe?) so maybe I am just radically mis-estimating the effect. "

you misunderstanding GW marketing strategy-they need to sell new models that = flyers in 6th. flyers are harder to hit, and cannot be assaulted unless they go to 'hover mode' maing them far more surivable than any ground vehicle. they also bumped up the effectivenessof bikes and jump infantry=more sales.

A person like me who has built 7 armies over the years and still retains a 5,000+ point DIY themed marine force doesnt need to buy anything else.....unless of course you completely destroy the viability of my army build to try and force me to spend more. i am not willing to do the latter so i will play 5th or i will play 6th with a tweaked damage table or not play it at all. i have lots of other game systems i could be playing that dont make me feel like i am getting shafted.

mughi3
01-07-2012, 22:19
"Anti Tank weapons being efficient at killing tanks sound like a positive to me. "


No- it is any weapon killing tanks easily-it's down right stupid and a horrible meta swing for the game.

.Adding the +1 damage for AP2 and +2 for AP1 and leave the damage chart as it was in 5th would have been fine. especially now that cover is weaker.

Vepr
01-07-2012, 22:28
In some ways I feel your pain. As a tyranid player I spent the first part of 5th edition trying to build lists around nothing but hive guard just to have a bit of chance to compete with the endless mech spam. I finally said screw it and shelved my nids. That being said there are some armies that have little to no chance against vehicle walls so something had to be done. They might have gone too far but so far I do not think so and armies like nids still don't have an easy time dealing with vehicles but they at least have a chance.

Vepr
01-07-2012, 22:29
"Anti Tank weapons being efficient at killing tanks sound like a positive to me. "


No- it is any weapon killing tanks easily-it's down right stupid and a horrible meta swing for the game.

.Adding the +1 damage for AP2 and +2 for AP1 and leave the damage chart as it was in 5th would have been fine. especially now that cover is weaker.

Actually it is easier now for vehicles to get a cover say than it was before it is just less of a cover save.

Pendragon
01-07-2012, 22:30
People are seriously pissed that infantry can now harm their precious walkers now? On a roll of 6? IF they have krak grenades? The nerve...

Haravikk
01-07-2012, 22:31
I think they're fine, though I do think it's the wrong implementation. Personally I'd have gone for something more like:
Damage table as it was in 5th.
You receive a bonus for better AP as follows; AP3 +1, AP2 +2, AP1 +3.
You receive a -1 penalty for each hull point the vehicle has remaining.
Thus, a 3 hull point vehicle hit by AP1 has a 1 in 3 chance of being wrecked or exploding on the first hit, increasing to 1 in 2 on the second hit, and 2 in 3 on the third and beyond.
Against AP3 instead it'd be impossible to destroy it on the first hit, with a 1 in 6 chance on the second, and 1 in 3 chance on the third and beyond.
This of course excluding the fact that the vehicle could still be destroyed by accumulating enough weapon destroyed results plus immobilised.

Anyway, that would have been more of my ideal system, the actual one in 6th is fine but a bit too simplistic; however you still need to inflict glancing hits after all so it's not like its dead easy. Hopefully overall levels of vehicles will drop due to hull points and tank traps etc. all working against them, and as a result we'll see less anti-vehicle firepower, probably comprising anti-air once everyone gets something viable. In theory it should level off at some point where we have no more than a handful of carefully selected tanks that the army needs in order to get the most out of its infantry and vice-versa.

BooTMGSG
01-07-2012, 22:32
as it stands now a guardsman has a better survival rate in 6th ed than a land raider.

A lasgun up to a tesla destructor can kill a guardsman. They can not destroy a landraider. So no.

You need Str8 minimum to glance on a Landraider

Hull points seems good, (it may even take out the random from vehicle killing) Glances don't stop the tank from fireing or moving, but they do add up.
All in all seems a nice trade off.

KitKat
01-07-2012, 22:34
a chimera can now die to bolter fire.

If you're exposing your rear armour to a unit of marines, you're doing it wrong. Also a Chimera could be killed by bolters in 5th so that's a moot point.

mughi3
01-07-2012, 22:35
In some ways I feel your pain. As a tyranid player I spent the first part of 5th edition trying to build lists around nothing but hive guard just to have a bit of chance to compete with the endless mech spam. I finally said screw it and shelved my nids. That being said there are some armies that have little to no chance against vehicle walls so something had to be done. They might have gone too far but so far I do not think so and armies like nids still don't have an easy time dealing with vehicles but they at least have a chance.

Actually your nids are quite better in 6th at hurting armor. all your big bugs get double strength(up to 10) and re-roll armor pen against vehicles for half the number of attacks in additon to a +1 on the damage chart. what my friend who runs a mostly shooty nid army is lamenting is the loss in effectivenss of the boneswords on his warriors. he will run from terminators now instead of eating them.

I also disagree with the statemnt of armies having troubles against vehciles. i have played for a very long time. there are many anti-armor options in every codex, its up to the players to choose to utalise them or not.

Rick Blaine
01-07-2012, 22:37
OP, you have no clue. While tanks became more fragile individually, a group of tanks is now much more resilient. You can't just put a glance on each of 3 tanks every turn to effectively neuter them all game long. You have to put all 3 hits on one tank to get rid of it, leaving the other two unharmed and ready to return fire.

HalfBlood
01-07-2012, 22:38
I think your problem is you brought a mech list to 6th edition.. Obviously people were upset with mech spam in 5th, therefore GW added the hull point idea. I personally love the hull point idea the most about 6th edition, but I play Necrons so I cant complain :p

The way I see it is this. Last edition I could pen a land raider 4+ times and would not roll a 5+ on the chart?. I just find hull points to make the game more systematic, and less reliance on the roll of the dice. Its time for a change, its clear that GW wants the game to go towards a infantry core, with flyers and vehicles as support. This is for the best.

mughi3
01-07-2012, 22:38
If you're exposing your rear armour to a unit of marines, you're doing it wrong. Also a Chimera could be killed by bolters in 5th so....

a chimera side armor is 10 and you could only kill a chimera with bolters in 5th through cumulative damage, now you just have to annoy it.

Killgore
01-07-2012, 22:39
Vehicle heavy armies will have to get used to using terrain. Sitting in the open and getting shot by every weapon on the table is not the best method for saving hull points. increased vehicle mobilty in the new rules should allow vehicles to dart from cover to cover whilst destroying what units they expose themselves to.

hurrah for the death of the parking lot/ rhino wall!

Nkari
01-07-2012, 22:40
So, lets see now, taking a ton of glancing hits (glancing do NOT mean paint scratching, it means that the vehicle got penetrated throu and throu, without hitting crew or vital parts of the tank, it can mean a shattered gun sight, it can mean a treadwheel going out of alignment, not fully immobilizing the vehicle, but still makes it harder to drive the thing. etc etc etc.. ) failing to glance or penetrate is paint scratching.

Imho, the new rules actually makes vehicles behave more like their real world counterparts, they are VERY easy to hit in CC, cause you do not go 50kpm in battle conditions, atleast not if you want to shoot something, unless your on a highway with no cover what so ever. Crew do get scared when bullets and anti tank missiles comes flying and allmost penetrates the vehicles, so think of it that when the tank looses all of its hullpoints, the crew abandons the tank cause they really really do not want to stay in it when it finally blows up. General rule when I was in the army, is that you needed 3-4 hand held anti tanks (60mm ish ones) to safley take out a tank (cause not all of them will hit the optimal place.) and no I dont tank about hitting a MBT in the front, rather APC or AFV.


So all in all hullpoints is good for me. (but then again, 28mm should not have air plane models, nor should they have actual artillery pieces on the board other than in specific scenarios, or in a direct fire mode)

mughi3
01-07-2012, 22:40
People are seriously pissed that infantry can now harm their precious walkers now? On a roll of 6? IF they have krak grenades? The nerve...

Infantry could harm walkers before but at least walkers had a fighting chance, now they just die. thats not even a reasonable trade off.

Vepr
01-07-2012, 22:41
Basically vehicle spam will not do you as much good this edition. It can still be powerful from a gun line perspective but it is not a brainless haha tactic anymore. Vehicles will still have their uses and will still be powerful in their own right but will not completely dominate the battlefield. Even today vehicles have to have infantry and air support. If they go into a city during a war all by themselves they are asking to be set on fire, imoblized, trapped etc. Look at the gun on the warthog. It actually does not always pierce a tank but that 30mm gatlin cannon will glance it to death by destroying the tracks, wheels, engine, guns etc. and turn it into a torn up wreck.

BooTMGSG
01-07-2012, 22:53
I think the fact that blast markers do full strength damage will also hurt the parking lot list. (which is good)

From the view point of someone who loves his monolith, I'm not too fussed about Hull point.
For one its not that easy to glance them to death Consider the number of str 8 weapons an army has, divide it by 6, and thats the threat. Haywire will be one to look out for.

The thing is, it may even help the Monolith if the meta moves away from mass vehicles and mass Melta. Though I guess we will have to wait for the dust to settle on that.

Gonefishing
01-07-2012, 23:36
I have to sort of side with the OP here, yes Mech spam had become much more dominant on the battlefield - the reason for this? GW dropped the points costs of vehicles massively in 5th edition Codexes and people could take them in large numbers. If GW wanted to stop people taking tanks maybe a better option than Hull Points would have been raising the price again?

Something (from a game point of view) did have to be done about vehicles, as it stood they were very powerful and could be hard to kill (Unless you had railguns! lol) - I think with Hull Points they have gone to far, 4 Glances on a Landraider? With Tau I can do that in a turn (2 at the most), a unit of Deathrains will be able to kill 1 AV 11/12 model a turn without breaking a sweat....

Tanks are TANKS, but with the Hullpoint system they may as well have well been constructed with papermache armour.

We will see a massive reduction on the number of tanks on the Battlefield now, and thats very good for those armies that struggled to deal with Tanks. The few Tanks that do turn up will be dead all the quicker as all those anti tank weapons and fliers will have fewer targets to fire at. The problem lies for those Armies that "Relied" on tanks to be successful, Eldar for example are screwed now, the vehicles fall over if you sneeze on them and Footdar options are limited in the extreme. Tau have battlesuits to fall back on, and I think all Battlesuit Armies will be back in vogue, Ork Kanz lists are dead etc etc. Imperial Guard have some hope as they are one of the few Races that can currently have "Big" tanks in a squadron (so if a tanks survives a turn they can move it to the back of the queue) - Not many other races have this ability with main battletanks (Although I suspect Imperial Guard will be going full Air Cav anyway now).

In the spirit of fairness, its good for the chaps that used to struggle with armour, its awful for the guys that rely on it (and spare some sympathy for the people that have spent a few hundred quid on Tanks over the last few years).

The big winners are armies that can take bikes/jetbikes/jet packs and fliers - people used to complain about the tank wall? By the end of this edition I think people will be crying out for a nerf on these guys, fighting Bloodangels now for example is just going to be Assualt Marine (troops) and Psyker Spam. Expect Dark Angels when they come out will be Bike Spam (Go go Raven Wing!).....

Something did have to be done, but I have to agree with the OP, Hullpoints just arent scaleable with the amount of weapons out there that can glance a tank with ease.

GW has made a mistake here though I think, Tank sales are going to plummet, and most Armies can have a maximum 3 fliers - Less sale of vehicles is going to hurt their profit margin (I predict as the new Codexes come out either more Flier Squadrons will be available or new Tanks with some sort of Hull Point modifier will be released - in a way they already have, quantum shielding anyone?)

Rick Blaine
01-07-2012, 23:48
Seems to me that a lot of folks arguing that tanks suck now haven't actually played any games yet.

HalfBlood
01-07-2012, 23:55
You also forgot that GW just recenly raised the prices on tanks about 1 month ago. This already hurt their prices seeing that my group refuses to spend 80$ for a LR.

I dont think vehicles will be completely gone. Maybe LRs will sit this edition out, however rhinos,razorbacks,ect are extremely cheap. They have a simple job and that job is to transport infantry.

AlphariusOmegon20
01-07-2012, 23:56
a chimera side armor is 10 and you could only kill a chimera with bolters in 5th through cumulative damage, now you just have to annoy it.

Considering I've been running a Steel Legion army since Codex Armageddon, I'd have to disagree with you. I've lost more Chimeras to simple bolter fire in 12 years than any other weapon COMBINED, including Melta.

Annoyance through mass firepower WORKS.

Second, if you're not taking a Melta weapon or a high strength weapon of some sort in outflanking squads that have that have that option, you're doing it wrong. Ork Kommandos with two Rokkits are a dirty sentence to a Steel Legion player. So is Tau Stealth Suits with a Fusion Blaster.



I think the fact that blast markers do full strength damage will also hurt the parking lot list. (which is good)

From the view point of someone who loves his monolith, I'm not too fussed about Hull point.
For one its not that easy to glance them to death Consider the number of str 8 weapons an army has, divide it by 6, and thats the threat. Haywire will be one to look out for.

The thing is, it may even help the Monolith if the meta moves away from mass vehicles and mass Melta. Though I guess we will have to wait for the dust to settle on that.

Most Blast Marker weapons are not over S6, so you'll still need a 6 against AV12 just to glance it.

Gertjan
01-07-2012, 23:56
Actually your nids are quite better in 6th at hurting armor. all your big bugs get double strength(up to 10) and re-roll armor pen against vehicles for half the number of attacks in additon to a +1 on the damage chart. what my friend who runs a mostly shooty nid army is lamenting is the loss in effectivenss of the boneswords on his warriors. he will run from terminators now instead of eating them.

I also disagree with the statemnt of armies having troubles against vehciles. i have played for a very long time. there are many anti-armor options in every codex, its up to the players to choose to utalise them or not.

How have boneswords become less effective against terminators if I may ask? They still ignore armor saves as far as I can tell, they aren't power swords so don't have the ap3 rule, they still are swords which simply ignore armour.

Ronin_eX
02-07-2012, 00:01
I quite enjoy hullpoints myself. Vehicles may die a but quicker, but during that time they will likely actually be doing something. The meta in the last several editions rewarded throwing just enough shots at a vehicle to make sure it wouldn't be firing anything. If you did that then the enemy vehicle was a rolling paperweight next turn. Your best chance to fire was to get a shot off in the first turn, if the enemy let you shoot after that then they were doing it wrong.

Hull points still allow you to destroy a vehicle by applying a lot of firepower to it over time (or by actually hitting it with proper anti-tank weapons to try to pop it in one shot) but if they only aim for glancing hits then it is going to keep firing for the duration of its life. So even if it ends up blowing up it likely did more in the end then a vehicle in the previous edition. And just as a personal preference I like units that interact with the game rather than sit around being bullet sponges. Also, keep in mind that the new wound allocation rules mean that a great way to prevent anti-tank fire is to flank units and hit them from the sides or rear to score kills on anti-vehicle weapons tucked away in a unit. The days of near-invincible heavy weapons is largely over and it is superior maneuver and positioning that killed it. I can see flankers, deep strikers and fast units becoming great assets for supporting vehicles.

As a Dark Angels player I know what my Ravenwing flankers and Deathwing deep strikers are going to get tasked with in the early game. Now that denial and disruption are valid tactics the game has a lot more interesting in-game tactical potential than it did before. GW finally put a new tactical tool in our kits, let's use it.


How have boneswords become less effective against terminators if I may ask? They still ignore armor saves as far as I can tell, they aren't power swords so don't have the ap3 rule, they still are swords which simply ignore armour.

Indeed, boneswords are not now, nor have they ever been, power weapons. So they currently keep their ability to ignore armour and thus remain a very scary weapon against terminators.

unknown_lifeform
02-07-2012, 00:12
.the actual damage chart got scarier thanks to changes to AP1/2

.it makes some vehicle upgrades pointless as my eldar playing friend discovered...whats the point of spending points on hollowfields when i just glance you to death?(thats a mere 3 hits against AV12)


I'm not going to disagree with your main point as I've yet to actually play games with the new edition and I don't think you can theorise this kind of thing. Its obvious that vehicles and mech lists are no longer the undisputed kings although I'm not convinced vehicles have become a complete waste of points.

Your first point in the list above is wrong though - AP1/2 is functionally the same as before when penetrating except that if you destroy the vehicle via the damage table it will always explode. There is also no chance of destroying it outright through a glancing hit, which you could do with an AP1 weapon before.

As to the second, holofields were silly good before so I don't mourn this change. Plus all skimmers now get the advantage of getting a jink save if they move.

Do you think your experience might owe something to playing 6th ed with 5th ed armies? If tanks are easier to kill you'll likely see people taking less of them and more infantry. That combined with other rules changes will likely mean people pack less anti tank into their armies. Rather than every squad maxing out on melta guns you are likely to see far more plasma guns and flamers for instance. That could lead to a new "meta" with fewer vehicles but also less threats to them. At the moment you have weaker vehicles with exactly the same ammount of anti tank as before so they would seem to die far quicker.

Nubl0
02-07-2012, 00:12
Played a few games against our local mech spamming ig player today with my crons, and after months of suffering at the hands of leafblower in my local meta it was sweet,sweet justice to see my nice balanced army blow him off the table. The rage induced was almost table flip worthy. That said he was a good sport in the end and is now redesigning his lsits, as 6th has made many units that were not viable... viable! Only problem I see for some armies is terminator spam lists, some dex's just dont have the firepower or low ap weapons to deal with it. Thunder hammer/storm shield dudes are still going to be a massive pain in the neck though.

On hull points, I think the system is fine, it means you can't just steamroll up the board with av 14 anymore or try choke it with mass chimera, and given that it's easier to get a cover save with them now they are not quite as vulnerable as the OP makes out, I feel it better simulates that tanks still need infantry support against enemy infantry that get to close while also encouraging the use of cover against AV weapons.

Greyhorn
02-07-2012, 00:12
I actually think that's is a good rule, In most of the games your Transports, Tanks, etc.. end destroyed or completly useless, but that's some kind of game luck. What is completly sure is that there is not even 1 player of 40k that haven't been scrwed up with a 4 turns glancing hit that doesn't destroy your tank but makes it useless with stun, at least now you will be dead in 3 turns, but all those turns of glancing hits you will still be able to do something with that vehicle.

Commissar Davis
02-07-2012, 00:24
Necrons will be the bane of all tanks and vehicles this edition, as all they need is a few sixes, and pop goes the tank.

I don't think that vehicles are now useless, but will require more thoughtful deployment.

Minsc
02-07-2012, 00:41
Since about 90% of my old glances/penetrating hits resulted in crew shaken/stunned, I'm quite happy about hullpoints.
I think my 'record' is a Rhino that took ~20 glances and ~10 penetrating hits before it finally died. This was after coversaves mind you.

murgel2006
02-07-2012, 00:41
it is really funny. everyone has a different opinion and experience.

The following is my personal.

I play Eldar with lots of "tanks" Falcons, serpents etc. And I love hull points.
My reason is simple. in 5th my falcons etc. almost never fired a single shot, some even didn't move the whole game because of glances.
I stopped using holofields because I cut cost on my transports and tanks. now I know my tanks will at least fire as long as they are around.

I love hull points because IMO the old system was so broken and S...ed so badly I do not have the words for it.

Killgore
02-07-2012, 00:52
I'm looking forward to seeing how Hull points are handled by Forgeworld for their super heavy rules

Nubl0
02-07-2012, 00:55
Perhaps ward created the newcrons with the intention of keeping mech spam in check "gasp!!" For that I thank them.

mughi3
02-07-2012, 00:58
it is really funny. everyone has a different opinion and experience.

The following is my personal.

I play Eldar with lots of "tanks" Falcons, serpents etc. And I love hull points.
My reason is simple. in 5th my falcons etc. almost never fired a single shot, some even didn't move the whole game because of glances.
I stopped using holofields because I cut cost on my transports and tanks. now I know my tanks will at least fire as long as they are around.

I love hull points because IMO the old system was so broken and S...ed so badly I do not have the words for it.

Yeah you will fire for all of about a turn then they will all be dead. enjoy walking.
snap fire is nice, but isn't great and not even close to balancing out the paper armor. if it exhisted in 5th it would have been worth it.



Do you think your experience might owe something to playing 6th ed with 5th ed armies?
That statement only show how bad GWs game design is. no other wargame i play(and i play alot) makes an army fail simply by an edition change. the options in the codex are legit options and should work effectively in every edition. however when you make game rules specifically to sell models you invariably have to tone down what already works since people have already bought lots of those miniatures. the amount of the pendulum swing has always been one of GWs problems. leaving the old damage chart for example but adding the bonus modifiers for AP1/2 would have still done the job(hell i was concerned about it before i found out about hull points) to emphasise true tank killing weapons while giving armor a fighting chance.

I should not have to build an editon specific meta army just to enjoy the game when my thematic armies went from being fun to play to being totally or mostly worthless. they already did that to my ravenwing back in 3rd/4th

Next edition armor will probably be more survivable again and my salamanders can come back off the shelf. unless we use house rules or play 5th my army just wont be much fun to play since it wont likely last half a game......

Time to go break out my storm eagle list. :p

Voss
02-07-2012, 01:05
a glancing hit does minimal damage i counter that it should not take 4 paint scratches to kill a 300 point model without actually having to work at it.

Thats... an interesting interpretation of what a glancing hit is. Sure it doesn't do systemic damage, but that doesn't mean a 'glancing hit' is a paint scratch.
But, anyway, lets do some math, yeah? For a guard army with missile launchers to wreck a land raider, odds are they need to fire 4*6 *2 =48 shots. (50% miss chance, glance on 1 in 6 rolls). 64 if cover is involved- I'd call that working at it. They could theoretically do it in 4, but they odds on that are so long as to be laughable.

But anyway, if you've got 5000 points of marines laying around and you can't pull something viable out of that, I don't know what to tell you.

RandomThoughts
02-07-2012, 01:09
.it does not matter how hard they are to hit in CC now, it doesn't even matter much how far they have moved...now it is all about WS1-IE you hit vehicles on 3s at the worst. basically if you assault any vehicle including walkers they die.

You still have to glance it. My Scorpions just might get a chance to kill it with the claw (wound on 6s!) before it munches through the whole unit. My Banshees still can' hurt it. Sorry, but what you say is just not true.


.the actual damage chart got scarier thanks to changes to AP1/2

Did it? Really?
AP 1 and 2 (and -)are pretty much identical to what thy were, AP 3 to AP 6 actually got worse.


.it makes some vehicle upgrades pointless as my eldar playing friend discovered...whats the point of spending points on hollowfields when i just glance you to death?(thats a mere 3 hits against AV12)

I'll give you that, this is absolutely true. However, Eldar have a 6 year old codex, a new one is around the corner, so just don't take Holo-Fields anymore, it's not the first time and it won't be the last a new edition made a piece of wargear obsolete.



.increase the hull points by X3 to give vehicles a fighting chance or just go back to the 5th ed damage chart while using the new AP rules.

You familiar with the Eldar Dreadnought, renamed a long time ago for some weird reason as Wraithlord?
It used to be the same thing as a Space Marine Dreadnought. Same role, same survivability. I assume that is why he got T8, which (in theory) needs the same roll to wound that gets you a glancing hit against AV12 (leaving aside S5 and both poison and rending/snipers, which for some weird reason eat up Wraithlords).

It also got three wounds. Will you triple that as well and make him 9 wounds?



"Anti Tank weapons being efficient at killing tanks sound like a positive to me. "


No- it is any weapon killing tanks easily-it's down right stupid and a horrible meta swing for the game.

.Adding the +1 damage for AP2 and +2 for AP1 and leave the damage chart as it was in 5th would have been fine. especially now that cover is weaker.

First of all, the chart stayed exactly the same for AP 1 & 2 and got worse for AP 3 to 6, and secondly, while cover saves are weaker in general (that is, if you're not using ruins which still give 4+), it's also easier to get cover, with 25% of the vehicle obscured instead of the 50% we used to have,

I support your right to nerd-rage, but please get your facts straight.

fwacho
02-07-2012, 01:17
My foot slogging guard are going to rule for awhile at least.

Thoth62
02-07-2012, 01:17
If I may also point out, there was a distinct change in the meta of the game when 5th edition was released. More vehicles, more transports, in essence, mech-spam. When you decided that's how you wanted to play, I'm going to guess that you played a different style earlier. So you changed tactics.

My point is this. Instead of complaining and whining about how GW somehow completely invalidated your 5000 points (!) of space marines, why don't you just figure out how 6th edition changed the game and adapt. Sure it might take a few games, and sure it might take a few iterations of your army list. But if what you say is true, and you really do have that many models and that many armies, than you are way, way, way better off than a lot of people out there who only have 1000 or 1500 point armies. So why don't you pull that sand out of whichever uncomfortable region its stuck in and remember why you started the hobby to begin with.

mughi3
02-07-2012, 01:24
You still have to glance it. My Scorpions just might get a chance to kill it with the claw (wound on 6s!) before it munches through the whole unit. My Banshees still can' hurt it. Sorry, but what you say is just not true.



Did it? Really?
AP 1 and 2 (and -)are pretty much identical to what thy were, AP 3 to AP 6 actually got worse.



I'll give you that, this is absolutely true. However, Eldar have a 6 year old codex, a new one is around the corner, so just don't take Holo-Fields anymore, it's not the first time and it won't be the last a new edition made a piece of wargear obsolete.




You familiar with the Eldar Dreadnought, renamed a long time ago for some weird reason as Wraithlord?
It used to be the same thing as a Space Marine Dreadnought. Same role, same survivability. I assume that is why he got T8, which (in theory) needs the same roll to wound that gets you a glancing hit against AV12 (leaving aside S5 and both poison and rending/snipers, which for some weird reason eat up Wraithlords).

It also got three wounds. Will you triple that as well and make him 9 wounds?




First of all, the chart stayed exactly the same for AP 1 & 2 and got worse for AP 3 to 6, and secondly, while cover saves are weaker in general (that is, if you're not using ruins which still give 4+), it's also easier to get cover, with 25% of the vehicle obscured instead of the 50% we used to have,

I support your right to nerd-rage, but please get your facts straight.

Fisrt, Voss your mathhammer means nothing on the tabletop i have already played the game in 6th and more than a single missile luncher marines gonna be shooting. dead land raider in one turn, thats how it happened.

Random first off, you can now run away from things you cannot hurt, an option that needed to happen so i am not crying for you sorry.

Second monsterous creatures have always performed better than vehicles because taking wounds does not affect their ability to shoot or fight in CC that is no different in this edition. snap fire does not affect them, nor do immobilised or stunned results and unlike a "one wound" dreadnought. a walker gets to make armor saves against krak grenades that cause the equal to a hull point. its a red hering argument there is no line of comparison to multiplying the hull points.

Nerd rage?
This is a cost/benefit comparison of a game mechanic change made after discussion among the players post playtesting. in real world in game experience the costs far outweight the benefits of snapfire and movement since movement no longer grants any real tactical advantage when it comes to survivabilty.

Brotheroracle
02-07-2012, 01:31
Well my Dark Eldar raiders are more survivable now so I'm fine with hull points. Guess you'll be putting up your 5000 thousand points on ebay then?

mughi3
02-07-2012, 01:39
If I may also point out, there was a distinct change in the meta of the game when 5th edition was released. More vehicles, more transports, in essence, mech-spam. When you decided that's how you wanted to play, I'm going to guess that you played a different style earlier. So you changed tactics.

My point is this. Instead of complaining and whining about how GW somehow completely invalidated your 5000 points (!) of space marines, why don't you just figure out how 6th edition changed the game and adapt. Sure it might take a few games, and sure it might take a few iterations of your army list. But if what you say is true, and you really do have that many models and that many armies, than you are way, way, way better off than a lot of people out there who only have 1000 or 1500 point armies. So why don't you pull that sand out of whichever uncomfortable region its stuck in and remember why you started the hobby to begin with.

I have always played mech heavy since i started in 3rd, editions didn't really matter to me. my tactics have actually changed little. i take an army and units i enjoy playing- thats generally half shooty, half assaulty and armored.

I've also been through the "adapting" thing already when the ravenwing list got de-fluffed back in 4th ed....$300 worth of land speeders and attack bikes i could no longer use. i picked my army list based on my homegrown fluff and my favorite models not on how super overpowered it was. not it is barely playable. i also never said it invalidatd all that i have to choose from but it severely limits my options given that i am fully mechanised. and it makes my favorite unit in the entire game model wise-dreads(i have 11 of them)- pretty useless.

I guess i have been spoiled by better game designers, i still play classic battletech and it still has solid rules that have needed little change in 25 years and are not affected by what era you play.


One additonal point-your sand comment was a thinly vieled insult i get that however mabey you could stop attacking me long enough to consider that GW possibly could have made a bad call and didn't quite playtest or get enough feedback on this mechanic before they decided it was spiffy.

Thoth62
02-07-2012, 01:50
Sorry, I didn't realize it was thinly veiled. I'll do a better job of making it more obvious next time. The thought that GW may have screwed up did cross my mind considering that this was the same line used back when 4th edition was released, and again when we got 5th. So you'll have to forgive me if I don't buy it coming from you. It's not personal. I don't buy it coming from any of the other people complaining about fliers, allies and the ever tiring "Chaos Sux now!" Seriously. Deal with it.

GodlessM
02-07-2012, 02:05
Fisrt, Voss your mathhammer means nothing on the tabletop i have already played the game in 6th and more than a single missile luncher marines gonna be shooting. dead land raider in one turn, thats how it happened.

Something happens to you once and that is somehow more reliable than law of averages? You just lost the thread and your remaining credibility.

Vepr
02-07-2012, 02:27
Monstrous creatures can be attacked with krak and melta now also. Everyone took all the low ap str 8 they could last edition so carnifex and even trygons were erased with surprising ease. 4 missle hits was a dead 160 plus point fex. Now it is a bit easier to get cover for MCs but they still drop like flies to anything that is dangerous to tanks and can still take wounds from a las gun. Editions change, personally I am not very happy with what happened to assault but I am still going to give things a try. Editions change and we just have to live with it. Marines have a lot of fun toys especially in the air now plus you guys are amazing all a rounders. I say maybe drop a vehicle per game until you find a balance with your army and see if it still suits you.

Like I said I can understand where you are coming from because 5th drove me away me from the table after about a year into it. BA, GK, and DE did not help either lol. Along with SW I was thinking why do they keep tailoring armies to rape nids? :p

FashaTheDog
02-07-2012, 02:50
Well my Dark Eldar raiders are more survivable now so I'm fine with hull points.

And did they ever. In the days of last edition a glancing hit or two was all that someone needed to stop my Raiders, now they get two mulligans before going down. And since I run at least six in a list with a trio of Ravagers, this is makes them better. Top it off with the fact I routinely have two dozen dark lance/blaster/blast pistols in my list and opposing armor is even more of joke than it was before. At worst against any facing of 12 or higher, half my hits will take off hull points so love me them Trueborn blaster bandits! Also the game made them even faster too, my Reavers can now move 4' a turn. Fourth edition made the last book better, 5th even more so, the new codex was another upgrade, and now 6th looks like another power up for Commorragh's children. This army just gets better and better! Lament Mon-Keigh at Games Workshop's true beloved army.

Vepr, Dark Eldar in all honesty did not change that terribly. Even their old codex slaughtered monstrous creatures with terrifying ease. The wide spread poison was just icing on the cake. The biggest boost they got against Tyranids was not auto-loosing to swarm list. What the new book really did was multiply us Dark Eldar players considerably as we were a dying race right up until the announcement of a new codex after 12 years of a half finished one that had been intended to be a stop gap until a proper book was released.

As to hull points, the concept is good, taken right from Rogue Trader when vehicle had wounds. The only problem I have is the amount of hull points as it seems like they were too stingy with them; it should really be higher for some vehicles, perhaps scale them 2-8 or so. Leman Russ and Land Raiders should have twice what they do. Battlewagons, Soulgrinders, and Defilers might be best with 7. Other vehicles like Rhinos, Sentinels, and all of the Dark Eldar ones are fine with their current amount. Dreadnoughts, Chimeras, and their variants might be better suited to 4 as would Devilfish. Predators and Vindcators might see 5 as suitable. It would really help differentiate the sturdiness of various vehicles and the amount/quality of armor and only make the vehicles a little more resilient to lighter anti-tank weapons without making them entirely too tough. Alternatively, rather than automatically being wrecked at 0 hull points, having any further glancing hits roll on the damage chart as well with penetrating getting a +1 modifier may have been a better way to keep vehicles from being a little too vulnerable. Of the two, Games Workshop could still take the former option without massive amendments as they simply just make upward hull point adjustment in the new codices as they are released. The latter option would require a main rule amendment, which Games Workshop does not seem too conducive to doing.

magnum12
02-07-2012, 03:12
If anything, I'd say Leman Russes made of like bandits in 6th. Mostly due to Lumbering Behemoth becoming more dangerous as you can pick one of your hull weapons as the normal BS and STILL fire the turret even if its a blast weapon as the turret is in addition to normal firing rules, thus it is not disabled by the restrictions on Snap Fire. Add in the new changes to blast weapons and armor penetration rolls and you can potentially kill (or at least screw up) multiple tanks with one Battle Cannon* if placed right.

*Since its an S8 ordinance weapon, your odds of getting a penetrating hit are pretty high on light-medium vehicles.

Kevlar
02-07-2012, 03:13
Demonic Possession sounds like it will be well worth it now. I assume it ignores the regular damage table as well as the loss of a hull point on a glance?

Chapters Unwritten
02-07-2012, 03:28
I think it would have worked better if a vehicle could only lose it's last hull point to a penetrating hit, personally. I like it because vehicles shouldn't be such an easy choice, but I feel like a lot of the vehicles should have their prices adjusted, at least the offensive ones. The flyers that don't have to go to hover to drop off cargo are all but invincible and virtually no armies have anti-air just yet. I don't think it's a problem that the game is going to be more focused on all the rest of the game instead of vehicles; I do think they die a little too easily (I will probably not field any more walkers again, for example...my dreads got pasted pretty bad today, and honestly, why would I take an autocannon dread when I can just take an Aegis for 25pts less and man the gun with the squad leader from my Long Fangs?).

The thing to remember is that overall, this is a good thing. You are going to see lots of builds being viable now, which is a good thing even if vehicles took a bit too hard of a nerf. I'd rather be able to enjoy the many varied units of the game and see lots of army builds and tactics, then watch the tactics subforum have every thread be like "Why didn't you take a seventeenth Chimera? That list will never work!"

Things like that amazement a couple of months ago when a foot Eldar army even made it to one of the big tournaments' top halves shouldn't be a thing. All the armies have lots of great infantry and not all of them have transport spam viability. Now, perhaps none of them do.

Get out of the box and fight like you mean it!

spagg
02-07-2012, 03:46
My group played our first 6th edition gAme tonight. It was a multiplayer orcs and grey knights vs dark elder. All 4 of us really liked hull points and the new damage chart system.

MajorWesJanson
02-07-2012, 03:56
I'm looking forward to seeing how Hull points are handled by Forgeworld for their super heavy rules

Superheavy rules are in Apocalypse, not FW any more. And since they have their own damage chart, they honestly work fine without any changes. They actually become more durable without having to worry about hullpoints, and things like driver and gun crew shaken are on a per weapon basis IIRC. So until Apocalypse gets a new edition, Superheavies stay the same. Superheavy fliers as well, I think.

mughi3
02-07-2012, 04:03
Demonic Possession sounds like it will be well worth it now. I assume it ignores the regular damage table as well as the loss of a hull point on a glance?

Unfortunately not, glancing hits do no adverse effect to the tanks shooting, you will only ignore 1-3 on the pen chart with demonic. just getting hit/glanced does the damage. your more likely to be dead before you get to ignore a pen result effect.

mughi3
02-07-2012, 04:05
Superheavy rules are in Apocalypse, not FW any more. And since they have their own damage chart, they honestly work fine without any changes. They actually become more durable without having to worry about hullpoints, and things like driver and gun crew shaken are on a per weapon basis IIRC. So until Apocalypse gets a new edition, Superheavies stay the same. Superheavy fliers as well, I think.

Codex over-rides main rules, so unless FW changes stuff soon superheavies are going to be the best ground vehciles in the game. notice to that superheavy weapons like the mega-bolter are listed in the weapons appendix in the back of the book.. ;)

althathir
02-07-2012, 04:07
I think people are overstating the effect of hullpoints, they are a vehicle nerf, but the vehicle is more effective the first few turns. It basically turns rhinos back into transports instead of mobile bunkers.... thats a good thing. When you look at the codex's released for 5th I think hullpoints for 6th may have been planned for quite awhile (or even a last minute cut from 5th), the marine fractions rhinos became much more fair, same for chimeras, DE vehicles actually got a bit of boost, and Nids didnt' have any.

Gauthic
02-07-2012, 04:22
it is really funny. everyone has a different opinion and experience.

The following is my personal.

I play Eldar with lots of "tanks" Falcons, serpents etc. And I love hull points.
My reason is simple. in 5th my falcons etc. almost never fired a single shot, some even didn't move the whole game because of glances.
I stopped using holofields because I cut cost on my transports and tanks. now I know my tanks will at least fire as long as they are around.

I love hull points because IMO the old system was so broken and S...ed so badly I do not have the words for it.

Yep and Jink is AWESOME for our tanks too. In fact I'm tempted to play Vypers again.

althathir
02-07-2012, 04:39
Vypers do kick ass, str 6 spam is actually really good now.

Voss
02-07-2012, 05:12
Fisrt, Voss your mathhammer means nothing on the tabletop i have already played the game in 6th and more than a single missile luncher marines gonna be shooting. dead land raider in one turn, thats how it happened.

Uh. OK. I never claimed a single missile launcher, but never mind. But as for a dead land raider in one turn... so? There hasn't been a single edition of 40K where that hasn't been possible. Whether it is lascannons beating a S vs T roll in Rogue Trader and doing 2d6 damage points each, a lucky shift on the targeting grid or a single railgun getting a Penetrating hit and a 4+ on the damage table, land raiders can and will be destroyed, it has always been in the realm of possibility, and that isn't a bad thing.

Neighbor Kid
02-07-2012, 05:30
They are creating a game for moving.. they dont want static gun lines... but this hull point BS is a bit too much.. A tank can take a pentrating hit and keep going if nothing vital was hit.. Glances i think should not inflict hull damage.. Pens i could deal with that.

Athlan na Dyr
02-07-2012, 05:42
As an Eldar Player, I like the Hull Point change despite it making my tanks far more destructable.
Fact is that tanks were either far too strong in 5th for their cost (Rhino, Chimera and so on) or sat there for a game and did nothing (the larger, shooty battle tanks).

Hull points have changed this and now the cheap as chips transports can only transport for the first few turns rather than being a movable bunker for the entire game (compensated for by faster movement I think?) while the shooty tanks can actually shoot rather than acting like a bunch of ninnies because a long fang looked at them.
I do think that the combat vehicle rules are a bit off, but thats more due to movement having little effect and marines having S6 grenades to spam than Hull Points.

Looking forward to finishing my Pathfinders and sniping some heavy weapons to protect my transports :)

warhammered_40k
02-07-2012, 05:48
I think everyone has been stuck in the mind set of "More Tanks". Which don't get me wrong is REALLY fun, but it gets stale for us that play on an often basis. There was little room in 5th Ed to make some armies work well at all and if armies came to the table, they had more tanks than troop choices, which isn't a realistic vision at all.

What 6th ed has done, is breathed new life into a crumbling cookie of 5th edition. Now people are re-investing into troops and other "out-of-the-box" army builds as well as a different kind of fun. Sure bring tanks, but bring troops and things that we haven't seen in a while to the field. This game goes in cycles, if it didn't it would've died out long ago. Let's celebrate the changes and for now at least not lament that tanks don't rule the battle field now in EVERY scenario!

edit: I would just like to add that, I have played 4 6th ed games since release. A side from them taking longer (since we are still learning) they were MUCH more cinematic in nature. Also, I faced Necrons with some Space Marine armor, and a lot of what my opponent used glanced most of my poor tanks into oblivion, but he is a high roller anyways. So I learned and ran more jump marines than anything else, and BAM! I saw W's, especially with Chaplains and priest support.

tsuruki
02-07-2012, 06:16
So far i really disagree with the disdain for hull points.

Are you certain you read the damage table right? And that youre using ALL the rules in the book? If you just pick out a few rules to playtest a few at a time you wont get the big picture.

Heres my first 6th ed experience with vehicles:

Dualwing (heavy on the terminators) versus orks (heavy on boyz).

2 Landspeeders on marine side. (2 Hull points each)

Blitza bommer & Dakkajet on ork side. (3 hull points each)


We rolled and got a night fight, it lasted to round 3, without which I strongly believe my ork horde would have been kept back by sheer weight of fire and the new allocation rules.

Round 1, DA shoot lots, but are rendered impotent by night fight. Orks move forward, glance one land-speeder.

Round 2, DA consolidate on objektives and keep the pressure on, still held back by nightfight. Orks keep moving, this time they glance both speeders.

Round 3, DA outflank their first bike unit, at which point we realise charging is forbidden for units arriving from reserve. Orks too busy pressuring terminators and killing bikes to finish off the speeders.

Round 4, Terminators roll terribly for saves and orks start winning, we figure out that the challenge rules are terrible for nobs, both ork flyers lose some hull to glances but saved from melta death by evasive movement.

Round 5, first speeder dies, absolutely horrible saves see to the death of all terminators and bikers. DA give.

This game we witnessed 6 glances total, which would normally have rendered the vehicles in this given game useless, but instead they kept firing. The flyers survived mainly via their luck and speed, but in this given example they had no opportunities to shine. The speeders, who now benefit from jink saves were by far better than the old edition, normally they would have gone down to glances, or at least rendered harmless.


My take on hull points:
Heavy tanks = even heavier!
Medium tanks = Same survivability, with more reliability.
Light tanks = Less survivability, with more reliability.

Small arms can no longer render a vehicle impotent the same way they did, a big factor in making vehicles of any and all kinds much more useful for attack purposes.
But now that they get slowly torn apart, vehicles have attained a semblance of realism, no longer the all-or-nothing-missile-to-the-fuel-tank.
Light vehicles are certainly less survivable, but they still do the job they were meant to do, "transport the infantry and support the infantry", not the irrational "Replace the infantry".

Iron Puritan
02-07-2012, 06:32
I have a question for the OP: how much terrain does your group use?

Considering how certain things have changed, up to and including the whole fortifications deal, I am starting to think that 6th edition games will be much more rewarding on tables with more terrain than many WHFB and WH40K gamers are accustomed to.

zerodemon
02-07-2012, 06:57
One thing nobody is taking in to account is that the new raft of codices will rebalance any glaring issues with the new rules. 5th edition books aren't perfect under the new system. Don't worry. Things will get better.

Coldblood666
02-07-2012, 07:04
I love the new vehicle rules and think that its much more fair (yes, nid player).

Rick Blaine
02-07-2012, 07:13
And let's not forget wound allocation shenanigans in vehicle squadrons. Russ takes 2 hits, move another one up front and make those two hard-earned glances completely meaningless.

Ruination Drinker
02-07-2012, 07:27
I haven't played yet, but after reading my BRB last night I'm confident that my linebreaker list with 3 Vindicators can still be viable if I screen them for a turn or two with intervening models or terrain. Popping smoke will of course be vital to survival and even though cover got nerfed it's great that your tank can still shoot after a glance. I think I'll have rhinos and HB RB's run the lead block to take the initial fire and Nightfighting really helps Direct Fire Ordinance vehicles, especially since all marine vehicles come with Searchlights. At >2k I might even run a Redeemer to spearhead and soak up all the aggro.

Sure it's going to suck playing against necrons but I can't live without my S10 pie spam!

mughi3
02-07-2012, 07:46
they had more tanks than troop choices, which isn't a realistic vision at all.
So your telling people what kind of armies they are allowed to field. some of us like tanks or in my case walkers which are key to the background fluff of my chapter.
Tsuruki i think you played that wrong unless your leaving out his skimmers making their jink saves. round 2- one of those speeders should have been dead to a glance, also your using orks....5s to hit 6s to glance is not even close compared to the number of MEQ armies that will be shooting at them hitting on 3+. my storm went down to like 3 glancing hits from BA assault marines in one round of shooting. didn't make the 5+ saves


which would normally have rendered the vehicles in this given game useless,

No absent machine spirit that would have prevented them from shooting for a turn or 2 but they would have lived.


Small arms can no longer render a vehicle impotent the same way they did
No now they just kill them outright :P


But now that they get slowly torn apart, vehicles have attained a semblance of realism, no longer the all-or-nothing-missile-to-the-fuel-tank.
Light vehicles are certainly less survivable, but they still do the job they were meant to do, "transport the infantry and support the infantry", not the irrational "Replace the infantry".
:rolleyes: instant fail the minute you bring realism into 40K, this is a strategy wargame. game mechanics are there to make the system run smoothe and be somewhat balanced while providing strategic assets or options.

Like the previous poster your trying to tell people how to play/build armies, some of us like vehicles replacing infantry and it is perfectly rational (espcially for my IA10 salamanders seige army where dreads are troops). making the game enjoyable for us, however it is just no really do-able in 6th.



I have a question for the OP: how much terrain does your group use?
lots, we always have used a bit more terrain and alot more than the sparse GT tables. we had at least 3-4 large forests, 2 ruins and some multi-level hills on a 6X4 table in the games we played.


And let's not forget wound allocation shenanigans in vehicle squadrons. Russ takes 2 hits, move another one up front and make those two hard-earned glances completely meaningless.
Thats nice and all for IG russ's, let me know when i can start squadroning my dreads or land raiders.....

Ronin_eX
02-07-2012, 07:56
And let's not forget wound allocation shenanigans in vehicle squadrons. Russ takes 2 hits, move another one up front and make those two hard-earned glances completely meaningless.

True, vehicle squadrons got a lot better in this edition. Between being able to effectively block shots to units and no longer having to destroy immobilized members things are a lot better for them. I used to avoid squadrons and I think I will be fielding a lot more Land Speeder squadrons this edition (well once they fix the DA codex and I can use my tornadoes in one unit again).

Scaryscarymushroom
02-07-2012, 07:59
it was sweet,sweet justice to see my nice balanced army blow him off the table. The rage induced was almost table flip worthy.

This is a bad sign. I'm happy that your friend was a good sport about it, but consider all the players that, in the past four years put time, effort, money and care into their armies. Getting completely destroyed is quite demoralizing. How many players would just throw in the towel after this sort of experience?

I'm not a competitive player- I find that forgetting about what's 'viable' and what's bad allows me to play the kind of game I want to play: one where I can use minis because they look good and their rules are fun rather than one where I pick a model to be in my army because it produces (boringly) predictable success. Despite this, I would feel punished if I were to lose badly against an opponent and we both had the same models and strategies as last week.

Punished is not a good way for consumers of any product to feel. Any player who has put up with 10 year old codices could tell you that losing every game you play because you like something specific really sucks. Codex Daemonhunters, Codex Dark Eldar and Codex Necrons players prior to 2010 might be good authorities on the subject. (And so might Daemon players now, if you can find any to ask. :shifty: )

It tears apart the player base and robs us all of a community. Imbalanced rules killed my gaming group.

rocdocta
02-07-2012, 08:11
my gauss heavy necrons think hull points are fantasatic! ghost ark plus 10 warriors = 30 shots at rapid fire range. 20 hits. 3 plus glances! i may install a haywire cryp with his ass4 haywire gun. good times!

mercury14
02-07-2012, 08:19
I like the changes for the most part. But WOW is it easy to kill vehicles in an assault. A Wave Serpent moving 24 inches flat out shouldn't be hit in the back armor on a 3+. There's just no way it should be as easy to hit as a rhino moving one inch.

Wave Serpents cost over 100 points and have to drop off troops in dangerous places, not stay 36" back and shoot. As it is now they're ridiculously flimsy suicide tanks with no more survivability than the little fire dragon squad they're dropping off. It just isn't logical at all that fast skimmers moving flat out that cost a ton of points don't get some kind of bonus...

MajorWesJanson
02-07-2012, 08:26
And let's not forget wound allocation shenanigans in vehicle squadrons. Russ takes 2 hits, move another one up front and make those two hard-earned glances completely meaningless.

I would consider the ability to move another vehicle up to draw fire from a damaged member to be tactics and not shenanigans. This example requires both more though, and movement, which reduces the fire a tank can put out. I wouldn't call it shenanigans, like wound allocation tricks from 5th that are done in the list building stage. Movement to protect wounded vehicles is tactics, not shenanigans.

As for Eldar vehicles and Tau wargear, both those problems are things that should be fixed at the codex level. Maybe Eldar vehicles will get the assault vehicle ability. Maybe Holofields will make them harder to hit in CC and improve jink saves. Maybe Tau target Locks will change from split fire to something like giving Precision shot ability. Maybe the Tau Command and Control node will allow for reserves bonus or maybe a reroll on the warlord chart.

Rick Blaine
02-07-2012, 08:27
You can also buy almost 30" of 4+ cover fortifications that can be placed up to halfway up the table for 50 pts. Maybe try to look at the wider context of the new rules before writing them off.

blameless
02-07-2012, 08:32
I would consider the ability to move another vehicle up to draw fire from a damaged member to be tactics and not shenanigans. This example requires both more though, and movement, which reduces the fire a tank can put out. I wouldn't call it shenanigans, like wound allocation tricks from 5th that are done in the list building stage. Movement to protect wounded vehicles is tactics, not shenanigans.

This^ it is not OP by any stretch of the imagination.

Have thrown a few dice around and it looks pretty well balanced overall I think.

Gonefishing
02-07-2012, 08:34
You can also buy almost 30" of 4+ cover fortifications that can be placed up to halfway up the table for 50 pts. Maybe try to look at the wider context of the new rules before writing them off.

Not if your a Skimmer as your helpful flying base puts you above the 25% - Still a nice boost for all the non xenos army vehicles.....

Of xourse the problem for you guys is you cannot then drive through your own ageis line, so you get the cover but block your own movement....swings and roundabouts

MajorWesJanson
02-07-2012, 08:40
Not if your a Skimmer as your helpful flying base puts you above the 25% - Still a nice boost for all the non xenos army vehicles.....

Of xourse the problem for you guys is you cannot then drive through your own ageis line, so you get the cover but block your own movement....swings and roundabouts

Orks are quite pleased as well, as are Nids who can use the walls for their MCs.

Athlan na Dyr
02-07-2012, 08:56
So your telling people what kind of armies they are allowed to field. some of us like tanks or in my case walkers which are key to the background fluff of my chapter.
Tsuruki i think you played that wrong unless your leaving out his skimmers making their jink saves. round 2- one of those speeders should have been dead to a glance, also your using orks....5s to hit 6s to glance is not even close compared to the number of MEQ armies that will be shooting at them hitting on 3+. my storm went down to like 3 glancing hits from BA assault marines in one round of shooting. didn't make the 5+ saves


Some of us like infantry or actual armies to field. Fifth screwed us in terms of competitiveness against mech, now Sixth is reversing this somewhat. That is rather the way that it works.
There is nothing stopping you from fielding your fluffy force, other than a bad experience and a lack of perceived competitiveness.

And you appear to have had some really crappy luck/ a lucky opponent. This is hardly indicative of the normal state of affairs. Play a couple more games before you come out and declare that GW "epically failed". Also, your land speeder has a 36" gun. That assault squad has a 12" one unless something has majorly changed with bolt pistols. Perhaps it is time to start regarding infantry as a little more dangerous than you did in fifth and compensate for that on a tactical level.

Finally, with mech becoming weaker for many armies, the amount of anti-tank weapons in an all comers list should also decrease meaning that over time your list could quite easily have a renaissance. Wait until the list upheaval from sixth has quieted down before making judgements.

edit: If your opponent was using a half-way competitive 5th list, it would have been designed to cram in as many AT weapons as possible. If that didn't destroy a mech list, then that would have been a failure of rules

bad dice
02-07-2012, 10:03
Also I don't knew about you guys but I was getting sick and tiered of fighting carparks.
I mean it was fun and all at the start all those tank nice and dynamic but after 5 years I welcome the change.

Pyriel
02-07-2012, 10:18
we ALL knew vehicles would be getting a serious nerf this edition. stop complaining for something that was already assured to happen. just because 5th was the "go mech or go home" edition doesnt mean 40k, as a whole, is. in 4th, transports were DEATHTRAPS and nobody used them, with the exception of "a couple of rhinos" for some space marine players-and even then, not for the most competitive ones. 6th seems, like 4th, to nerf vehicles-but not so much. who knows, maybe this leads to "some armies using vehicles, other armies not using vehicles" which will bring a great, fun environment to play and compete in.

just... stop bringing 5th-ed armylists for 6th-ed games. please. i KNOW most ppl started competing in tournaments in 5th ed, but that doesnt mean 40k was always about the mech game. editions change. ADAPT. and that, coming from a BT player, who has adapted all they way from 4th to 5th, and now from 5th to 6th with the SAME superold codex.

Commandojimbob
02-07-2012, 10:33
we ALL knew vehicles would be getting a serious nerf this edition. stop complaining for something that was already assured to happen. just because 5th was the "go mech or go home" edition doesnt mean 40k, as a whole, is. in 4th, transports were DEATHTRAPS and nobody used them, with the exception of "a couple of rhinos" for some space marine players-and even then, not for the most competitive ones. 6th seems, like 4th, to nerf vehicles-but not so much. who knows, maybe this leads to "some armies using vehicles, other armies not using vehicles" which will bring a great, fun environment to play and compete in.

just... stop bringing 5th-ed armylists for 6th-ed games. please. i KNOW most ppl started competing in tournaments in 5th ed, but that doesnt mean 40k was always about the mech game. editions change. ADAPT. and that, coming from a BT player, who has adapted all they way from 4th to 5th, and now from 5th to 6th with the SAME superold codex.

THIS ^

It is hilarious listening to some people whine that there uber 5th edition list is no longer uber...... well that is odd, because we are no longer 5th edition. 6th Edition seems to have balanced vehicles now, which is great - so all those Mech heavy lists of 5th edition need to now look at the rules of 6th, consider how this affects your lists and adapt to start playing in 6th edition - stop crying that your boring copy paste uber net list is know longer uber and think !

It is going to take a while i think before we really start to understand the shift that 6th brings but so far, going through the book, im loving what it brings.

TrangleC
02-07-2012, 10:40
7th edition will pretty surely go back to Mech Meta. I don't really see how my Mech Eldar list could stay halfway competitive (even in 5th it only was able to win games because of turn 5 shenanigans and last minute mission objective grabs), but I won't make the mistake again of selling it now. I'll store it and perhaps it might have a big come back in 4 to 5 years. (Unless there will be a new Eldar model line that will make the current ones look ****** in comparison and thus still force me to buy new ones, as I would have done if I still had had my old Dark Eldar army when the new codex and models came out.)

xxRavenxx
02-07-2012, 10:42
Infantry could harm walkers before but at least walkers had a fighting chance, now they just die. thats not even a reasonable trade off.

This is my hi-light of the OP's rant against hullpoints.

10 marines charge a dread. 5 hit with grenades. Statistically they aren't even likely to get a 6, but lets assume they do. Wooo! They've done it a single "wound". Only two more turns of losing guys to its powerfists to go and its down. DAMN YOU FOR MAKING IT SO WEAK HULLPOINTS!!!

I'm not even sure how mughi got to the idea that bolters can take down transports so fast. Point the front at the enemy and you'll be on top of them before they can shoot your side or rear armor (and why bother, when combat will let you attempt to penetrate instead?)

The idea that missiles can reliably get a landraider down in a turn is laughable too. Lets say you have 12 of them (Three dev squads worth?) Thats 8 hits. So not too unreasonable to expect a single 6, and a glance. Only three more turns of that and you've cracked the tank. Its like its made of paper...

MiyamatoMusashi
02-07-2012, 10:46
I think Hull Points aren't a great idea (an AV10 vehicle is effectively T6, W3 with no armour save and vulnerable to ID (penetrating hits)) which doesn't exactly make vehicles very realistically resilient.

...but... it's hard to disagree with the previous two posters. GW change their games every four years (insert "to force you to buy something new" or "to mix up the meta and keep people thinking" depending on your level of cynicism) and with 5th Ed being a game of mech, 6th Ed was always going to change that. The hull point rules are silly (IMO), in fact the whole vehicle armour/damage system has been silly since 3rd Ed and it's only now got a bit sillier... but it's what we've got, we're stuck with it, and it's no surprise.

(I'm not sure why I'm so forgiving about 6th Ed 40K when I can't stand 8th Ed Warhammer. Maybe because there's very little new in 8th Ed WH that I like, whereas I like and dislike stuff in 6th Ed 40K in equal measure. So maybe I can understand people getting upset about Hull Points after all, because I got upset about random charges and magic. But still... it should not be a surprise).

MajorWesJanson
02-07-2012, 10:52
I wonder how things would balance out if everything has 1 additional hullpoint than it does now, but it is far too soon to even guess. It will be a few months before the new rules settle in, and another month or two before the new meta sets up. Plus CSM and DA probably within the next 6 months, so more scrambling of the meta.

Lets give it more than 2 days before screaming about the sky getting awfully close to the ground.

Azalthor
02-07-2012, 11:07
I for one am very happy with this change playing Tyranid and often facing IG and all
Also my friend of mine was criticizing my way of playing tyranid we switched around and I took his SM
I threw a speeder and he went BOOM all charge and then he realised the pain of hitting on 6's the speeder survived with a shaken if I recall
Also there is that time when a monolith took all my army for 2 turns I'm not sure if it's still the same with their new FAQ

Long live hull points!

Pendragon
02-07-2012, 11:23
I like the new hull point system, and I play armoured Imperial Guard (9 Leman Russ tanks if i can get away with it). Sure, they're going to die a lot easier, but they're no longer going to be stunlocked by glancing hits or killed by being immobilized. Also, I can shoot with almost everything, all the time, even if its at BS1. Is my army less competitive? Probably (not that it was great in the first place), but the new rules are probably going to make it more fun to play, both for me AND my opponent.

Pawn of Decay
02-07-2012, 11:25
So this weekend I played my first game of 6th edition. It also happened to be my 2nd game using Eldar. I tried Eldar out with 5th Edition rules last week and thought that they were ok. They did some things fine, but I found that a lot of the movement and options with the Eldar were strangled a bit with the rule set. I did however have a fun and enjoyable game loosing to Necrons 7 Kill points to 6 Kill points. It took far too long to take out his Doom Scythes etc.

With the new rules, I changed my list slightly to use more of the Psychic Powers. Now Eldars powers are still very good, so I bought in Eldrad and a small 4 man unit of Warlocks keeping them, with a Farseer and small 4 man unit of Warlocks for some of the new powers (I settled on using Divination Powers for game 1). The army I played against was my friends Daemon Army. Now whilst his Daemons don't have a lot of shooting (and we wanted to try out a lot of the new rules) I bought along allied Orks... (This hurt a bit....) With Shoota Boys, Big Mek with KFF and Dakka Jets with Lootas appearing behind an Aegis Defence line... He suddenly had some fire power...

The game was brilliant fun with a lot of very cool things happening. When a Dakka Jet appears on turn two to mow down and destroy a unit of 3 Eldar War Walkers... it can change the game a little :) Flyers are a bit more resiliant than other tanks, but once you hit them, the hull point rules etc. Balance it quite nicely.

Hull points are a nice addition to the rules. Whilst I am new with Eldar, and taking 4 Wave Serpents seems to be a brilliant idea, the Hull points didn't hamper the game. I lost 2 of the Tanks during the game and all of the War Walkers... But the game was great fun, and seeing the Eldar running around the field on foot with Seer Councils actually being used for more than Protecting a Seer.

The game was great fun. Yes I will be changing my list a bit. Perhaps a couple of Wraith Lords instead of War Walkers. But I don't think I will be changing my list too much.

Ironically my current Chaos Space Marine army seems to be much much better...

theshoveller
02-07-2012, 11:49
I guess i have been spoiled by better game designers, i still play classic battletech and it still has solid rules that have needed little change in 25 years and are not affected by what era you play.
Just because it hasn't had a significant rules update in 25 years doesn't mean it hasn't sorely needed one.

...and the very vocal 3025 crowd believes that the game is very much affected by what era you play in.

Narf
02-07-2012, 12:38
Having not played with 6th yet (still waiting for my book!) i'm looking forward to it, and will play the first few games with my 5th ed army.

The only changes i can see happening to my army, if the transports rules are that much of a hinderance will be as follows

Instead of 5 man Gh, with power armoured WG, i'll take 10 GH, with TDA WG, alongside a possible IC

I'll still take the razorbacks but they will be my anti tank support units (las and twin plasma), as i will not need to get as close to the enemy now, i can fire my bolt guns at 24 even when moving, and teh TDA will allow me to absorb some heavy firepower, and the look out sir will allow my TDA to survive a little better.

All in all i'll prob just drop some WG and maybe dreads depending.

if i fidn tehre is no problem with HP my army prob wont change much at all due to them, but again may change as above jsut to flow better overall.

xerxeshavelock
02-07-2012, 12:46
I like Hull Points - they mean you have to treat your force with care. It is worth commenting that the Hull Point system is another similarity to the tried and tested system in Epic Armageddon where War Engines will lose a Structure Point and have a chance of taking more serious damage. In that system its on a 6, in this one its based on how powerful the weapon is (ie whether it scores a penetrating), but either way the HP system is based on something that GW has years of experience with.

itcamefromthedeep
02-07-2012, 13:23
In some ways I feel your pain. As a tyranid player I spent the first part of 5th edition trying to build lists around nothing but hive guard just to have a bit of chance to compete with the endless mech spam.No you didn't. Neither Hive Guard nor mech spam happened until something like a year-and-a-half into the edition.

You spent the first part of 5e using the 4e codex fighting Nob Bikerz and Vulkan. ;)


Actually your nids are quite better in 6th at hurting armor. all your big bugs get double strength(up to 10) and re-roll armor pen against vehicles for half the number of attacks in additon to a +1 on the damage chart.Neither of those things is an improvement. The +1 only brings MCs back to parity, because the current penetrating hits table is very much like the old one with a -1. S10 with the re-roll at half Attacks is comparable to the old version where MCs got an extra dice for armor penetration.

Tanks are easier to kill for a number of reasons, but those aren't among them.


I also disagree with the statemnt of armies having troubles against vehciles. i have played for a very long time. there are many anti-armor options in every codex, its up to the players to choose to utalise them or not.Because Tyranid anti-tank capability tends to be concentrated, it's relatively easy to remove the models that Tyranids use for fighting armor at range, particularly in the context of a tournament with inadequate terrain (which is a lot of them). Using close combat to kill vehicles in 5e was a joke.

Johnnya10
02-07-2012, 13:43
I haven't had a go with tanks in 6th yet. Played some smaller infantry-only games and thought it was great (especially the challenges), but from a logic POV, I think hull points make a lot more sense. I found it frustrating in 5th when you had a Dreadnought stood on the table a few turns in that couldn't move and had no working weapons. Or a Land Raider just sat in the middle of the battlefield getting in the way.

When you think about the sort of weapons that are getting glances on the really heavy stuff, it's not exactly coming from bolt pistols and stubber rounds, is it? I'd imagine that if any tank got "glanced" a few times with something as powerful as a melta weapon or a lascannon, it wouldn't take too many glances to crack the plating. And if you put yourself in the boots of the hypothetical firer, you'd aim for any spot you'd weaken time and again until it cracked, rather than start fresh on something that isn't damaged. What's more as a trained warrior, you'd know which parts of the vehicle to hit to make it go bang.

But even aside from that perspective, I was getting sick of seeing lists that were just taking anti-tank weaponry. I was doing it myself. I'd take loads of twin-linked lascannons, meltas, melta-bombs, chain-fists and power fist and I'd feel like I was light on anti-tank! Ok, so you still need some of that to get those glances but I'm hoping we'll see a few different weapons load-outs in 6th. You can now spend a bit more of your tactical thought process thinking about how you're going to deal with warlord-slaying and troop-killing, not to mention stopping flyers.

I'm looking forward to rolling out my heavy armour for a couple of games next weekend and if my Land Raider gets trashed early on, it won't bug me because I'll be doing the same to my opponent and I won't have to panic so much if it gets munched. And besides, wrecking vehicles is fun. :D

Greyhorn
02-07-2012, 13:57
If I may also point out, there was a distinct change in the meta of the game when 5th edition was released. More vehicles, more transports, in essence, mech-spam. When you decided that's how you wanted to play, I'm going to guess that you played a different style earlier. So you changed tactics.

My point is this. Instead of complaining and whining about how GW somehow completely invalidated your 5000 points (!) of space marines, why don't you just figure out how 6th edition changed the game and adapt. Sure it might take a few games, and sure it might take a few iterations of your army list. But if what you say is true, and you really do have that many models and that many armies, than you are way, way, way better off than a lot of people out there who only have 1000 or 1500 point armies. So why don't you pull that sand out of whichever uncomfortable region its stuck in and remember why you started the hobby to begin with.

agreed! I've been playing this game since 10 years at least, and in every new edition all the players say.. ah!) hiuh??! WTF? GW screwed the game.. blablabla.. and in every edition I just adapt my playstyle, my army list or my army(between the ones I alkready got, not having a new one) and finally I found a way to play wich I like and it's competitive, so my point is.. if you like the game play it, and do not bother the rules, because in 5 or 6 years a new rulebook will come out and you'll blame the new rules like you did in this edition, you know why? because you got used to those 6th edition rules and are not that bad as you thought in the first place

N1AK
02-07-2012, 14:00
Surely this is partly a meta-game issue? During 5th edition you needed buckets of anti-tank focused weapons to deal with the tank spam. As the number of tanks decrease in 6th people will start taking less anti-tank weapons because they get less benefit and start taking weapons that focus on infantry and other common choices.

mughi3
02-07-2012, 14:15
Just because it hasn't had a significant rules update in 25 years doesn't mean it hasn't sorely needed one.

...and the very vocal 3025 crowd believes that the game is very much affected by what era you play in.
There is a big difference in new VS old weapon systems and core game mechanics. most of the 3025 people hate the clans, i don't mind playing either....you just tend to explode more in 3025 when the ammo cooks off since nobody has CASE. doesnt change the rules, and the few tweaks they made where needed to things like the AMS. but thats a minor weapons tweak again and not a core mechanic change.

Latro_
02-07-2012, 14:33
Mech lists in 5th 'were' effective, but the internet is misleading.

I went to the doubles weekend at GW hq over the weekend, 106 teams thats 185,500 pts and i can tell you from walking around after a couple of games that meched up armies were very much not the norm.

Yes transports that are focussed on are gonna get nerfed quicker, but as has been mentioned the others will be unscathed and you really should invest more importance on how much of an effect stunned and shaken results made in 5th.

Now getting glanced once means nothing to how effective you are, in fact you can now fire all your weapons on the move even 12", even after being glanced, you can even move 18" if you like (and not fire)! no one mentions that all those transports just got a 3rd faster! you can use it to get into .... cover!

is parking 10 chimeras or razor backs in a line and shooting the snot out of the enemy dead?

yes, and good riddance.

TomsDad
02-07-2012, 14:40
I think Hull Points aren't a great idea (an AV10 vehicle is effectively T6, W3 with no armour save and vulnerable to ID (penetrating hits)) which doesn't exactly make vehicles very realistically resilient.

OK but AV10 are pretty much very light vehicles so not really fair to take them as indicative of vehicles in general. If you take av12 as average it become T8. (And AV14 is T10 of course)

EDIT: One thing that is highlighted by the Hull points = Wounds comparison is that this revision brings vehicles more in line with the rest of the system.

Personally I think the change is alright. Instead of spreading your shots out to get as many shaken results as possible you have to concentrate them to get kills. That lack of shaken means those vehicles are going to be shooting back (and they can do more of that now as well)

As someone posted earlier light vehicles are fragile, but that's fine I hit a vyper with a lascannon I'm using a sledge hammer to crack a walnut (and they are more likely to be able to jink).

I agree with the poster who made the point that killing vehicles has been made more about getting sustained hits on target, rather than hoping for lucky rolls.

What I think is causing a big difference in perception is everyone on the table knowing how many 'wounds' a vehicle has left. I think that is giving some the perception of vulnerability. Were as before your 1st shot was as likely to knock out that LR as your 10th one was (ok barring working through those weapons). Now we can 'see' the smoke beginning to billow.

For me it's a good trade off of game balance and verisimilitude

And for all those with mech heavy lists, well think of the fun you can have actually shooting all those big guns, in a race between your tanks and the other guys anti armour :).

I think walkers getting to use their front AV keeps them reasonably safe in CC, but this one I haven't seen that much of in play so will hold judgement.

As for the complaint "but I like taking mech heavy lists for fluff reasons and now I'm less competitive" well surely that's the definition of game balance isn't it? Concentrating in one area leaves you vulnerable to lists that can hurt that area.

Finally I agree with those saying good riddance to the parade ground of armour, maybe we'll have to get used to mobile warfare (those things have tracks for a reason)

MalusCalibur
02-07-2012, 14:43
I'll confess to not caring a huge amount for the rules changes and their balance or imbalance, since I don't play 40k nor ever plan to again.
However, one thing I would like to address to the OP would be this: why are you surprised? This is what passes for rules design with GW - swing the balance pendulum from one unit type to another in order to sell the models. From 5th edition we ended up with high numbers of vehicles (particularly transports) being effective, therefore people's armies were built to include them. Now GW wants to sell different models to those people, so they reduce the effectiveness of said vehicles and boost other things (mostly fliers, let's face it), forcing players to buy new models to rebuild their armies. I can't imagine many players are going to have collections vast and varied enough to just change up their list freely to match the new meta requirement, without having to buy something new.

So in all honesty, I find both sides of this discussion ('Hull Points completely ruined vehicles!' blind hatred VS 'oh its a new edition just completely rebuild your army and stop whining' sycophantism) almost amusing. It's the same cycle every four years and yet both sides seem to crop up every time without remembering the last - it's almost as bad as General Elections. After a few codex releases, GW's desired metagame will be established and certain builds will become exclusively optimum, they'll just be different to the 5th edition ones. New armies will become overpowered, new ones will drop to painfully underpowered, one or more codices will be left behind for years upon years, falling further and further behind the power standard (let's hope it isn't the poor Tyranids again), and the whole stagnant mess will be resumed, leaving players clamouring for something to end the 'x' spam (where x is probably fliers/bikes/monstrous creatures, from what little I have gleaned) that makes the game so boring and broken. Again.

What I would suggest, OP, is that you choose, from the editions that exist, which ruleset you and your gaming group prefers, and play that. You don't have to play what's 'current', you don't have to give a flying toss about the metagame or the flavour of the month army, you should just play the game that you want to. No one is policing your games, nothing stops you playing any rules you like - hell, make stuff up if you want. House rule the stuff that sucks. Certainly don't hand over money for a product (the rulebook i.e. the rules) that you don't like.

Again, I know little about the matter and don't care a lot for it, but for what it's worth I find I agree with your sentiments regarding glancing hits and vehicles. It seems stupid, from casual observation, that glancing hits should be able to kill anything as easily as it appears they can. This is an entirely subjective statement based on no game experience, so please no one waste their own time correcting me.

Daedalus81
02-07-2012, 15:13
Infantry could harm walkers before but at least walkers had a fighting chance, now they just die. thats not even a reasonable trade off.

The guy made up numbers or his opponent got lucky rolls. The dreadnought goes first. If you're assaulting with it then it better be ******* armed for close combat, which means 4 attacks, 2 hits, and pretty much 2 dead. 8 left with 4 hits, and .7 glances. That is no where near the odds of 5 hits and 3 glances.

Pile of over exaggerated bs. In the meta dreadnoughts are now likely to be used as terminator killers.

Omniassiah
02-07-2012, 15:28
Honestly, the only thing hull points hurt was the one army type that people were hoping to see improved : Combined arms. The full mech and full foot armies aren't really affected by it but the armies that use. One or two vehicles will watch them get wrecked left and right.

Grampyseer
02-07-2012, 15:39
It seems that if you're truly getting all your vehicles popped in the 1st turn, you need to be playing with terrain.

This will require tactical play on the table. ( as opposed to the list creation)

This element has been missing from 40k for some time, and I welcome its return.

malisteen
02-07-2012, 15:51
Pile of over exaggerated bs. In the meta dreadnoughts are now likely to be used as terminator killers.
Are they? I'd figure terminators, with their 3++ saves and S8 attacks, would smash most dreadnoughts while taking minimal if any damage in return.

Not that I'm with the OP here, rules change, armies change, it's the nature of the game. This particular comment seemed odd to me, though.

murgel2006
02-07-2012, 16:19
With the new rules, I changed my list slightly to use more of the Psychic Powers. Now Eldars powers are still very good, so I bought in Eldrad and a small 4 man unit of Warlocks keeping them, with a Farseer and small 4 man unit of Warlocks for some of the new powers (I settled on using Divination Powers for game 1).

That would be great, but Warlocks do not get any new powers. Sorry, only farseers get new powers (see FAQ and/or WD)


OT:
The thing I do not really like about the new system is that Eldar Warwalkers and Vypers are now even more vulnerable. With only 2 points they suffer badly.
The hull point system is to my liking and worked really well in my games until now. The problem is not the rule but the codex.

Gauthic
02-07-2012, 16:24
That would be great, but Warlocks do not get any new powers. Sorry, only farseers get new powers (see FAQ and/or WD)


OT:
The thing I do not really like about the new system is that Eldar Warwalkers and Vypers are now even more vulnerable. With only 2 points they suffer badly.
The hull point system is to my liking and worked really well in my games until now. The problem is not the rule but the codex.

Don't forget your Vyper Jink Saves (it'll save their skins!). Also remember to allocate hits to the closest vyper/war walker until it's DEAD (from what I understand of the Vehicle Squadron allocation rules, there's still a lot to take in, so I may be wrong).

silashand
02-07-2012, 16:37
People are seriously pissed that infantry can now harm their precious walkers now? On a roll of 6? IF they have krak grenades? The nerve...

This. I played my first game of 6th yesterday and found it was a vast improvement over the previous version in pretty much all areas. JMO though...

yabbadabba
02-07-2012, 16:47
A person like me who has built 7 armies over the years and still retains a 5,000+ point DIY themed marine force doesnt need to buy anything else.....unless of course you completely destroy the viability of my army build to try and force me to spend more. So you have 7 armies over 10 years one of which is 5k of marines and yet you cannot build an army that doesn't need tanks, thereby negating your issues here?
Sorry, but I am confused.

Pawn of Decay
02-07-2012, 17:04
That would be great, but Warlocks do not get any new powers. Sorry, only farseers get new powers (see FAQ and/or WD)


OT:
The thing I do not really like about the new system is that Eldar Warwalkers and Vypers are now even more vulnerable. With only 2 points they suffer badly.
The hull point system is to my liking and worked really well in my games until now. The problem is not the rule but the codex.

Perhaps my statement wasnt very clear. The Farseer had new Psychic Powers. In fact he ended up with 3 very good Psychic powers qhich complimented the normal eldar ones very well. The Warlocks were running around with 2 Destructor, 1 Embolden and 1 Enhance per squad.

As for the Eldar War Walkers, yes they are vulnerable. I mean I ran a unit with 2 Scatter Lasers each. This is a horrific amount of fire power that they can dish out. With the new cover saves and only needing to be 25% obscure, with some clever working they will be fine. The unit I used ended up dying to a Dakka Jet who got passed the cover with its silly movement, but it wont stop me taking them in the long run.

Sqallum
02-07-2012, 17:12
This will stop Grey Hunter/Rhino spam :) However, I am annoyed as it means my Land Raider is now redundant. Has Extra Armour changed? And how do Techmarines help your tanks stay alive beside un-imobolizing them?
Thank you.

Spiney Norman
02-07-2012, 17:14
I think you're entirely 100% wrong but I guess it's different strokes for different folks. I love the new rules.

Land raiders should not take 12 glances to die. Tanks should not be very survivable and should be supported by a fair bit of infantry.

I hope your gaming group finds a solution so you enjoy your games in future though, good luck.

And I don't think you've really thought through how easy it is to glance a vehicle.

12 Necron warriors rapid firing at a Landraider, Zahndrek gives them Tank hunters

24 shots, 16 hits, 2.7 glances,
tank hunter rerolls, an additional 2.2 glances, on average a total of approx 5 glancing hits... Dead land raider, from a 12 man troop squad costing about half the value of the tank.

I'm not suggesting vehicles should be as tough to kill as they were previously, but you may as well no bring any vehicles when you're fighting Necrons. Don't even get started on the voltaic staff, for 25 pts you have a cryptek carrying a gun that can wreck a 3HP vehicle every turn.

Flyers stand more of a chance because they are so damn hard to hit for most things, but again Necrons have the perfect answer: CCB and Doom Scythes will rip apart any enemy flyers in short order. And this is me as a Necron player talking.

Elsewhere any squad with Haywire grenades will pretty much wreck any non-flyer vehicle in one turn of combat.

xxRavenxx
02-07-2012, 17:19
However, I am annoyed as it means my Land Raider is now redundant.

Why?

It will still need 4 glances to kill it. That means that guard need 24 shots of lascannons to break it, assuming they don't roll high on the pen chart. It seems likely that a land raider will get at least a couple of turns of rolling up, to safely deposit its contents in someone elses side of the table before it dies. Meanwhile your other vehicles are all still hale and hearty due to the focus needed.

Sqallum
02-07-2012, 17:23
Having read Spikey Norman's post,I am stuffed against Necrons. But I suppose that all the attention on my Land Raider will take attention away from my soft Rhinos :) Does Extra Armour add a Hull Point?

Spiney Norman
02-07-2012, 17:23
Why?

It will still need 4 glances to kill it. That means that guard need 24 shots of lascannons to break it, assuming they don't roll high on the pen chart. It seems likely that a land raider will get at least a couple of turns of rolling up, to safely deposit its contents in someone elses side of the table before it dies. Meanwhile your other vehicles are all still hale and hearty due to the focus needed.

Why are land raiders redundant?
Answer- Necrons

Any vehicle that is costing more than a handful of points this edition is a liability, given how easy it is to glance any given vehicle a LR isn't that much harder to destroy than a Rhino and costs 7 or 8 times as much.

Also considering the massive survivability boost Terminators have recieved this edition I think DSing them in and assaulting the turn after is definitely the way to go.

Gauthic
02-07-2012, 17:23
Why?

It will still need 4 glances to kill it. That means that guard need 24 shots of lascannons to break it, assuming they don't roll high on the pen chart. It seems likely that a land raider will get at least a couple of turns of rolling up, to safely deposit its contents in someone elses side of the table before it dies. Meanwhile your other vehicles are all still hale and hearty due to the focus needed.

Thank goodness! Here's the of statistical reason. More than like you'll have a better chance of penetrating and exploding a Land Raider than glancing it to death (with the exceptions of auto-glance gauss weapons, etc).
Are necrons going to waste vehicles? YES. That's one of their army traits. They did it in 3rd, they should do it in 6th (I don't play Necrons).

Gauthic
02-07-2012, 17:24
Duplicate post, sorry

xxRavenxx
02-07-2012, 17:26
Why are land raiders redundant?
Answer- Necrons

Why are foot slogging infantry redundant?

Answer- Tanks with ordnance!


Would you care to walk in circles with me for a while? :)

Vepr
02-07-2012, 17:34
No you didn't. Neither Hive Guard nor mech spam happened until something like a year-and-a-half into the edition.

You spent the first part of 5e using the 4e codex fighting Nob Bikerz and Vulkan. ;)

I should have clarified by saying after the new tyranid codex was released. The actual transition to 5th with the 4th edition nid codex was not terrible. I played a fairly mixed list that was lighter on MCs and heavier on warriors and stealers and actually faired decently due to old way synapse functioned with warriors and all the templates we could drop with spitters.

Pyriel
02-07-2012, 17:36
... you guys do realise this is NOT the first time Necrons pWn vehicles, right? happened in 4th edition too.

it is their job, their niche, as army, to pWn vehicles.

they are functioning as intended. stop using the "5th edition mech spam build" as a crutch to your future builds, and realise that like in 4th-5th, the 5th-6th change will bring dramaticaly new meta. We all KNEW vehicles would be nerfed. honestly: would anybody be surprised if(for example) the way to compete in 6th is not to bring ANY vehicles at all? contrary to popular belief, this is NOT unheard of.

each and every new edition will have "things to spam". it is entirely, TOTALY possible that this edition's "things to spam" might NOT be transports.we will have to wait and see (at least 1 full year, till the new meta settles) , checking tourney results etc to understand what the new dominating listbuilding formula is. be patient. be openminded.


you think YOU are in a bad spot, and I'm not, thats why i dont complain?
my codex was nerfed to oblivion with the change to AAC vow no longer giving pref enemy, and my rhinos can no longer carry assault troops and ICs, only shooting troops, effectively.
and i am still waiting since '05 for a new codex, 2 editions(full 4th, full 5th, and even a 3rd edition with the same codex-6th!!!) with the same codex and counting, with NO news of any new codex on the horizon anytime soon as Chaos/Dark Angels/Eldar seem coming (and i guess smurfs and tau closeby).

DO YOU SEE ME COMPLAINING?

I.WILL.ADAPT. I have already found new things that might work and will keep trying them out until I am sure that in the new meta (at least 1 year more to settle, that) i cant do anything to improve. and i bet i will find a way, along my fellow Templar brothers.
you should try doing the same. it could be worse: just be glad you are not Imperial Guard in 4th edition when a 1/20 win/loss ratio was an accomplishment (guard won? wtf???). in previous tourneys, Tyranids had like a 40% win percentage compared to Space Wolves' (YES) 60%. thats not such a tremendous difference! try to adapt to new edition, improve your listbuilding, and compete/play better.

that is for the hardcore competitive players out there.now, if you wanna play just for fun and not for tourneys/competition, then you SHOULDNT complain , again, because you're admitting you're not in it for the win, right?

Voss
02-07-2012, 17:43
Any vehicle that is costing more than a handful of points this edition is a liability, given how easy it is to glance any given vehicle a LR isn't that much harder to destroy than a Rhino and costs 7 or 8 times as much.


Eh. The really expensive vehicles have always been questionable, especially against certain armies. 6th is no different in that regard. Whether it is a space marine army with land raiders taking up to many points (and leaving the army at a points disadvantage if the LR is popped by guard/railguns/vindicator spam/lucky rolls or whatever) or old Necron Monolith armies that were essentially just the Monoliths and either destroyers or wraiths, the 'expensive vehicle' phenomenon has always been a major gamble.
There was a reason melta spam was the tool of choice in a lot of 5th edition lists.

Daedalus81
02-07-2012, 17:47
Are they? I'd figure terminators, with their 3++ saves and S8 attacks, would smash most dreadnoughts while taking minimal if any damage in return.

Not that I'm with the OP here, rules change, armies change, it's the nature of the game. This particular comment seemed odd to me, though.

With the reduction in AP2 cc weapons they're a good alternative. They still go first and I can get two of them for 5 basic termies with power fists. And unless its a chain-fist they still need a halfway decent roll to damage it. Using even point comparisons the dreads will kill 3/5 of the terminators before they swing. Even 6 termie attacks means 3 hits, and 1.5 glance/pen.

Thoth62
02-07-2012, 17:53
Why are land raiders redundant?
Answer- Necrons

Any vehicle that is costing more than a handful of points this edition is a liability, given how easy it is to glance any given vehicle a LR isn't that much harder to destroy than a Rhino and costs 7 or 8 times as much.

Also considering the massive survivability boost Terminators have recieved this edition I think DSing them in and assaulting the turn after is definitely the way to go.


Why are foot slogging infantry redundant?

Answer- Tanks with ordnance!


Would you care to walk in circles with me for a while? :)

I'd also like to point out that the last time I checked, Necrons were not the only opponent anyone ever faced. So on the occasion that you actually do face Necrons, they kill your vehicles. Good. That's what they're supposed to do. For the other 90% of the games you play, your point is moot. Irrelevant.

I've said it earlier and I'll say it again. The point of an edition change is to change the rules. If it didn't, than it wouldn't be a new edition change would it? So here's my advice. Deal. With. It.

Spiney Norman
02-07-2012, 17:57
Eh. The really expensive vehicles have always been questionable, especially against certain armies. 6th is no different in that regard. Whether it is a space marine army with land raiders taking up to many points (and leaving the army at a points disadvantage if the LR is popped by guard/railguns/vindicator spam/lucky rolls or whatever) or old Necron Monolith armies that were essentially just the Monoliths and either destroyers or wraiths, the 'expensive vehicle' phenomenon has always been a major gamble.
There was a reason melta spam was the tool of choice in a lot of 5th edition lists.

The difference between a Rhino and a land raider is one hull point, whatever were they thinking? A LR should have at least 6, maybe 8 to justify its absurdly high pts cost. The problem isn't the system itself, hull points were a pretty good idea really, but the higher end vehicles really need more of them to give them any kind of survivability.

And for the record, I'm not crying because my 5th ed mech army is screwed (the only mechanised army I own is DEldar), I'm a Necron player who is shooting at land raiders and thinking "why the hell did they nerf them this much". A 250pt vehicle really shouldnt go up in smoke to one squad of rapid fire weapons.

Scaryscarymushroom
02-07-2012, 18:01
... you guys do realise this is NOT the first time Necrons pWn vehicles, right? happened in 4th edition too.

it is their job, their niche, as army, to pWn vehicles.


If it is the Necron's niche to pWn vehicles, they may very well end up being pretty weak in 6th edition. Seems like nothing short of an autocannon can do enough damage to completely turn vehicles upside down. Don't even get me started on anti-armor weapons like blasters, rail guns, meltaguns, lascannons, meltabombs, DCCWs, mawloks. A single haywire grenade in an army list could be good insurance against your opponent taking vehicles. They're what? ten points? (I'm just guessing. I actually have no idea.) With anti-tank everywhere, an army that specializes in it will come out shortchanged. If no one takes vehicles, Necron players could end up paying a lot of points for the bonuses that Gauss Weapons get against vehicles, without being able to reap the benefits in an infantry-heavy table. Maybe that's what tesla weapons are for. :shifty: I wouldn't be surprised if Necron Warrior purchases slowed significantly as a result of them not being able to min-max strong enough against infantry.

Gauthic
02-07-2012, 18:01
The difference between a Rhino and a land raider is one hull point, whatever were they thinking? A LR should have at least 6, maybe 8 to justify its absurdly high pts cost. The problem isn't the system itself, hull points were a pretty good idea really, but the higher end vehicles really need more of them to give them any kind of survivability.

And for the record, I'm not crying because my mech army is screwed, I'm a Necron player who is shooting at land raiders and thinking "why the hell did they nerf them this much".

No the difference between a Rhino and a Land Raider is 14 armor ALL THE WAY AROUND. There's a whole class of weapons that the Land Raider is immune to:

You can glance-kill a Rhino with heavy bolters.
You can both penetrate and glance kill with Shuriken Cannons a Rhino. The Land Raider, high atop its mountain, scoffs at such weaponry.
The mighty Autocannon is also just chips the paint on a Land Raider (and angers the driver, I'm sure), yet amazingly deadly to the Rhino.

Necrons are the EXCEPTION not the rule. (removed snotty rhetorical question)

Spiney Norman
02-07-2012, 18:05
If it is the Necron's niche to pWn vehicles, they may very well end up being pretty weak in 6th edition. If no one takes vehicles, you could end up paying a lot of points for the bonuses that Gauss Weapons get against vehicles, without being able to reap the benefits in an infantry-heavy table. Or maybe that's what tesla weapons are for. :shifty:

Which starts to open up this whole question, Necrons are not just the anti-vehicle kings, they have the best anti-termie CC weapon left in the game (Warscythe), they have the best weapons for dealing with flyers (CCB and Doomscythe) and even their basic gauss gun, while being dynamite vs vechicles is still as effective as a bolt gun against infantry. They have the tools to deal with everything, and the ability to take all the tools in the same list.

Grampyseer
02-07-2012, 18:06
And it won't go up in smoke to one round of shooting.

Even LESS likely if people avoid target hazards.

.....how novel

Flogger
02-07-2012, 18:07
since i run a themed mechanised siege list.

Time to change your list. The 5th edition "the one with most tanks win" era is over. Deal with it, the rest of us are going to have to and so far it's looking way more fun than 5th ever did.

Flogger
02-07-2012, 18:10
what my friend who runs a mostly shooty nid army is lamenting is the loss in effectivenss of the boneswords on his warriors. he will run from terminators now instead of eating them.


Since Boneswords ignore armour saves I'd say your friend is lamenting for the wrong reasons and the terminators should be the ones running away from his warriors. Boneswords are not power weapons, they just ignore armour saves so terminators are f*cked.

The bearded one
02-07-2012, 18:16
Seeing as my Tau were never really a fan of vehicles (gunlining + outflank, wohoo!!!), I think I'm going to like this edition :D Finally my firewarriors shall glance rhino's to deserved death!


Which starts to open up this whole question, Necrons are not just the anti-vehicle kings, they have the best anti-termie CC weapon left in the game (Warscythe), they have the best weapons for dealing with flyers (CCB and Doomscythe) and even their basic gauss gun, while being dynamite vs vechicles is still as effective as a bolt gun against infantry. They have the tools to deal with everything, and the ability to take all the tools in the same list.

Damn you matt ward, damn yoooooooooou!

Caitsidhe
02-07-2012, 18:20
I don't know if I'd call them "epic fail," but they aren't very good. There should simply have been a Glance Chart and a Penetration Chart. The Glance Chart should have read like this:

1. Shaken
2. Stunned
3. Hull Point (+Shaken/Stunned)
4. Weapon Destroyed (+Hull Point)
5. Disabled
6. Wrecked

The Penetrating Chart was fine with the assumption that all Penentrating Hits do a Hull Point automatically.

knightofthewr
02-07-2012, 18:20
I for one welcome the changes. I don't think this completely negates mechanized force but rather brings it more into balance with the fluff and real support tactics.

How many times in the fluff have you heard the space marine captain/sarg, say, "oh the esteemed honorable dreadnaught can handle that by himself. Let's just sit here and watch him kill the completely helpless infantry because as we all know those 12-15 guys have no chance of getting behind him or sticking a grenade anywhere important." more likely you have heard them say they must help him.

It means that you can't be as reckless with vehicles and must support them with infantry, like in real life.
Cover and mobility for most vehicles has greatly increased. Tactically this makes them more capable of doing what they are supposed to be doing, manuever and deliver fast heavy punch in so that support infantry can capture.

Beside that, many army lists in 5th ed were so loaded out with vehicle killing weapons that it may end up being a wash (as some have already said, it will balance out). I ran a heavy mech list (Tau). Any time a mob of orks charged my vehicle, it was destroyed.
Those that run with one or two vehicles in their standard lists, sorry you are the ones that feel the rules change more significantly, but at the same time I always felt that even in 4th and 5th ed that running low number of vehicles was not worth the cost. It would not suprise me at all if in the future codices include units that can fix hullpoints.

I understand that this is different from the way we have run lists for 5th, but that is really the point, that this changes the way we use are forces, but I don't feel that it is necessarily in a bad way.

Caitsidhe
02-07-2012, 18:29
I for one welcome the changes. I don't think this completely negates mechanized force but rather brings it more into balance with the fluff and real support tactics.

With all due respect, no it doesn't. What the new rules doe is make the Rhino Rush pretty much the only thing that matters for land forces. All vehicles (aside from flyers) might as well be made of tissue paper like a Thanksgiving Day Macy's float. It means that the only real purpose vehicles serve is to either:

1. Get assault troops as far forward as possible before being popped (hopefully blown open at just the right moment for you then to assault), or
2. Get as many shots off before they blow up as possible.

From a cost to return ratio, the cheaper the vehicle the greater the probability of return. That means a cheap Rhino, stripped down of everything save Extra Armor so it can keep moving, is likely the way to go. These new rules have simply turned the Rhino (or like vehicles) into projectile missiles which we WANT detonated so we don't have to disembark on our own turn and can thus still assault. That isn't particularly fluffy nor does it urge fancy tactics. Moreover, the proliferation of things like the DE Venom and other small, tissue paper vehicles that hit like a bus but can't take a shot further emphasize the need for MSU to remain strong. You will need enough different units to target different gun platforms. You don't need a lot of shooting. You only need the "right" shooting. Do you see where I'm going with this? There is nothing at all tactical wherein GW has required us to put at least half the army on the table and the best thing you can do (if an assault army) is run right at them as fast as you can, and the best thing you can do as a gun line is stand there and shoot.

lanrak
02-07-2012, 18:41
IMO.
To achive better game ballance internaly and across all factions.
It would be adventageous to resolve damage of all units in a similar way.
Treating vehicles in a completley seperate way to other units is unecisary and over complicated the rules.

So if you are going to give vehicles 'wounds' (structure points,), why not give them saves and toughness and treat them the same as monstrous creatures/other units ?

OR extend the AV system to cover other units using a simple comparison resolution ...

But then I remember 40k is developed to market minatures directly ,short term.(The new rules editions just change the meta to cycle the most useful unit type to increase new sales.)

And so delivering a well defined consise and intuitive rule set is not in the development brief.And it realy shows ....:D

Brother Ranz
02-07-2012, 18:48
If it turns out, after a bit of testing in the competitive environment, that glances are too powerful, what if we suggest that once your hull is glanced away, you take a pen roll on each glance or pen thereafter? That would be at least one more hit and maybe more. Also, to glance a landraider, you need to start w str 8, right? It is not like those weapons are everywhere or just crappy, cheap weapons. Having your rhinos destroyed by my tau firewarriors is kind of sucky, but it's only a rhino. :)

Loki Prime
02-07-2012, 18:54
Hull points are massively flawed unfortunately and I agree with the OP.

The hull point mechanic is fine but the way you lose them is massively flawed. You cant use a glance mechanic to cause hull point loss when there are things that can circumvent the normal rules for causing glances.

Not only Necrons but also Dark eldar have access to a fair amount of haywire. Expect to see squads of 10 scourges with 4 haywire blasters (who will rape vehicles and are still exceptionally good against infantry, highly manouvorable and scoring units in 1/6 of games).

This in in itself isn't the whole problem. The fact that the you don't take the units to glance vehicles but they do this as well as the other things they do well.

The other problems are that while cover saves are easier to get they are also less protection and to top it all of they made vehicles stupidly easy to hit in combat.

Wyches with haywire grenades will now do dirty things to just about any vehicle including walkers and they aren't even for that. They are a troops unit that is for assualting infantry and tarpitting things.

So they didn't just hit vehicles with the nerf bat. They battered vehicles to death with it.

1. Hull points make it easier to kill vehicles.
2. Cover saves are less effective
3. Hitting vehicles in combat went from hard to stupidly easy.


The real problem is though that you are actually left with very little you can do to stop your vehicles from dyeing if your enemy want to kill them.

But the real kicker for me is that it wont stop the transport spam it was designed to stop. A rhino costs almost the same as 2 marines and will give a piece of cover when destroyed and keep your deployment zone less crowded. Expect to see a craptonne of cheap transports and little else. The armies that really needed them like eldar will be in trouble.

I have about 10 armies and can field just about any unit from any of them. I can make very effective armies under 6th. It doesn't stop the hull points system being very badly implemented. My main army dark eldar doesn't care about hull points either as its rare for them to survive long enough to lose them all and actually all my vehicles got 10 points cheaper as I no longer need flickerfeilds. This isn't a rant about "my armeh is teh nerfered". Hull points are flawed and will become the bane of 6th unfortunatley.

For my main army (dark eldar) I stripped almost all my usual antitank units, moved to mostly anti infantry units and can still on average take out a land raider in one turn with very little the opponent can do about it short of hiding it in a corner and never coming anywhere near me (At which point what was the point in having it). That's hardly fair or balanced.

6th Edition. In the grim darkness of the far future there is only, Jetbikes, jump infantry, Terminators and flyers.

The bearded one
02-07-2012, 18:59
6th Edition. In the grim darkness of the far future there is only, Jetbikes, jump infantry, Terminators and flyers.
5th edition. In the grim darkness of the far future there is only vehicles... and marines.

Daedalus81
02-07-2012, 19:07
With all due respect, no it doesn't. What the new rules doe is make the Rhino Rush pretty much the only thing that matters for land forces. All vehicles (aside from flyers) might as well be made of tissue paper like a Thanksgiving Day Macy's float. It means that the only real purpose vehicles serve is to either:

1. Get assault troops as far forward as possible before being popped (hopefully blown open at just the right moment for you then to assault), or
2. Get as many shots off before they blow up as possible.

From a cost to return ratio, the cheaper the vehicle the greater the probability of return. That means a cheap Rhino, stripped down of everything save Extra Armor so it can keep moving, is likely the way to go. These new rules have simply turned the Rhino (or like vehicles) into projectile missiles which we WANT detonated so we don't have to disembark on our own turn and can thus still assault. That isn't particularly fluffy nor does it urge fancy tactics. Moreover, the proliferation of things like the DE Venom and other small, tissue paper vehicles that hit like a bus but can't take a shot further emphasize the need for MSU to remain strong. You will need enough different units to target different gun platforms. You don't need a lot of shooting. You only need the "right" shooting. Do you see where I'm going with this? There is nothing at all tactical wherein GW has required us to put at least half the army on the table and the best thing you can do (if an assault army) is run right at them as fast as you can, and the best thing you can do as a gun line is stand there and shoot.

If you're taking rhinos I don't know why you're dicking around in them anyway. They're transports not pillboxes.

Those flyers aren't on the board turn 1 and will have a heck of a time getting a target turn 3 with careful premeasuring and planning. They can't capture objectives and they're not going to have enough shots in a game to wipe out larger units - especially not ones in cover that go to ground.

Oh and there are objectives you know.

Caitsidhe
02-07-2012, 19:15
If you're taking rhinos I don't know why you're dicking around in them anyway. They're transports not pillboxes.

Actually they are mobile pill boxes, nothing more. With extended charge ranges, the only point to most vehicles is to get the best fighting troops across the board to assault and table the guys who sit back (normally those less melee-inclined troops). You can shoot at them as I launch them forward like missiles, going 12" on my turn and then 6" more on my shooting. If I go first the Rhino will be destroyed at a range of 18" off my start mark which should put me in likely assault range of something. Because you have blown me out of it I get to assault. If you choose not to blow me out of it (since I would have to disembark on my turn and only shoot) I get to keep going. Hence, the Rhino Rush is here to stay. The point is that I have the 1st Turn to get across the board under the normal ridiculous fire while I still have Night Rules (at least half the missions) and before the Planes show up. My point, is that the new rules don't discourage MSU or Rhino Spam, they lock it in as the only viable strategy.

Daedalus81
02-07-2012, 19:22
Not only Necrons but also Dark eldar have access to a fair amount of haywire. Expect to see squads of 10 scourges with 4 haywire blasters (who will rape vehicles and are still exceptionally good against infantry, highly manouvorable and scoring units in 1/6 of games).

We're talking about a unit that costs 260 points with 24" guns and a 4+ armor. You also still need to hit, so 4 shots is roughly 2.2 glances/pens. Not enough to kill me in one turn most likely. If you're spending that going after a 35 point rhino then good on you. If you're going after a land raider then its carrying something nasty that can assault from the vehicle. All other vehicles can be effective from far far away.

Gauthic
02-07-2012, 19:28
We're talking about a unit that costs 260 points with 24" guns and a 4+ armor. You also still need to hit, so 4 shots is roughly 2.2 glances/pens. Not enough to kill me in one turn most likely. If you're spending that going after a 35 point rhino then good on you. If you're going after a land raider then its carrying something nasty that can assault from the vehicle. All other vehicles can be effective from far far away.

Exactly! Targeting priority is still very important in this edition. "Sergeant, destroy that unit first."
We not only play a game of dice, but a game of rock-paper-scissors with dice. If you know a unit is uber-killy against your stuff, kill that unit first.

Daedalus81
02-07-2012, 19:33
Actually they are mobile pill boxes, nothing more. With extended charge ranges, the only point to most vehicles is to get the best fighting troops across the board to assault and table the guys who sit back (normally those less melee-inclined troops). You can shoot at them as I launch them forward like missiles, going 12" on my turn and then 6" more on my shooting. If I go first the Rhino will be destroyed at a range of 18" off my start mark which should put me in likely assault range of something. Because you have blown me out of it I get to assault. If you choose not to blow me out of it (since I would have to disembark on my turn and only shoot) I get to keep going. Hence, the Rhino Rush is here to stay. The point is that I have the 1st Turn to get across the board under the normal ridiculous fire while I still have Night Rules (at least half the missions) and before the Planes show up. My point, is that the new rules don't discourage MSU or Rhino Spam, they lock it in as the only viable strategy.

Hence overwatch/snapfire, no assaulting from rhinos, glances killing, and WS1 vehicles. You're also pretending your opponent has no melee troops or anything else that could cause you a problem. I suppose I could even hop into rhinos myself and redeploy elsewhere. Rhinos chasing rhinos!

Bergen Beerbelly
02-07-2012, 19:40
I'm personally very happy with the new rules on hull points and I play Eldar. Historically the bane of tanks has always been infantry with tank busting equipment. So it doesn't bother me at all when I see this happening in this game.

Yeah, it's scary getting your vehicles charged by someone that can damage them. But, like in real life, you adapt, overcome, and learn from the mistakes of the past. Vehicles can be screened from chargers by your troops being in the way of the people who want to charge them. Tanks can go back to being what they were designed for in the first place...support platforms to help the infantry win battles.

I personally use my Eldar tanks as navy ships. They run around well out of assult range and let fly with all of the weapons at their disposal.

Rhino rush is not the only way to play this game. That's very limited thinking. Ask yourself why they made the game this way...It's because they got tired of seeing parking lots full of tanks just sitting in their deployment zone and being pretty much immune to incoming fire, all the while throwing out tons of shots that kill most everything they hit.

They wanted to add a little heroism back into 40k and I think it worked. Gone are the days of invulnerable tanks rushing across the battlefield and staying alive all game long, then in the last turn, rushing over to an objective to win the game...good riddance to that.

They wanted to bring movement back into the game, not sitting around all day shooting at each other. Maneuver to get cover saves (or take them away) under cover of darkness (night fight rules), not just sitting there all day...that gets boring after a few thousand times.

Caitsidhe
02-07-2012, 19:41
Hence overwatch/snapfire, no assaulting from rhinos, glances killing, and WS1 vehicles. You're also pretending your opponent has no melee troops or anything else that could cause you a problem. I suppose I could even hop into rhinos myself and redeploy elsewhere. Rhinos chasing rhinos!

I'm not pretending anything. I'm pointing out a painfully obvious fact in 6th Edition. Vehicles die fast. The only thing you can do with them is use them for whatever you can get out of them in the first 2 turns. Any turn beyond that is gravy. That means "Rhino Rush." There are no fancy tactics to be done with vehicles. They either deliver their payload of damage or they deliver their payload of troops. If they don't, you wasted points on them. Thus, you either don't waste points on them to start with or you squeeze them for everything they are worth in the first two turns. The new rules are badly written in that they do not create other, new tactics to be taken with vehicles but reduce them to a primitive binary result.

Kijamon
02-07-2012, 19:46
I'm not pretending anything. I'm pointing out a painfully obvious fact in 6th Edition. Vehicles die fast. The only thing you can do with them is use them for whatever you can get out of them in the first 2 turns. Any turn beyond that is gravy. That means "Rhino Rush." There are no fancy tactics to be done with vehicles. They either deliver their payload of damage or they deliver their payload of troops. If they don't, you wasted points on them. Thus, you either don't waste points on them to start with or you squeeze them for everything they are worth in the first two turns. The new rules are badly written in that they do not create other, new tactics to be taken with vehicles but reduce them to a primitive binary result.

So you're saying that to avoid being killed by short range weapons that can instant kill you/get several glances with one round of shooting (haywire grenades, gauss weapons and the like) that the best tactic is to move closer to them? No wonder you hate this edition!

What's the range on a necron weapon anyway? Pretty sure most decent heavy tank weapons have a longer range than they can dish out.

It's not called cover for nothing.

Daedalus81
02-07-2012, 19:48
I'm not pretending anything. I'm pointing out a painfully obvious fact in 6th Edition. Vehicles die fast. The only thing you can do with them is use them for whatever you can get out of them in the first 2 turns. Any turn beyond that is gravy. That means "Rhino Rush." There are no fancy tactics to be done with vehicles. They either deliver their payload of damage or they deliver their payload of troops. If they don't, you wasted points on them. Thus, you either don't waste points on them to start with or you squeeze them for everything they are worth in the first two turns. The new rules are badly written in that they do not create other, new tactics to be taken with vehicles but reduce them to a primitive binary result.

I completely disagree. All over this form are people spouting absolutes of all different varieties. Only actual games played will give us the answer. There are far more factors at play including flyers (which you dismiss) and psychic powers. Assaulting a T7 unit probably won't go well and you don't have a way to dispel things like that.

Gonefishing
02-07-2012, 19:52
I think they have made vehicles too weak with the hull points system, I dont disagree with anyone here that they needed to nerf vehicles and that the 40K parking lot was becoming a tiresome and repetative site of the battlefield, but that was only 1 aspect of vehicle heavy armies. Take for example an Ork Kanz list, fun to play against, good list (not in any way overpowered) - Now it really stands no chance at all - AV11 and 2 Hullpoints? Speaking as a Tau player I can do 6 Glances on a squadron of those without raising a sweat.

And I think thats the real issue, Ive been a Tau Player throughout 4th and 5th, as a Tau player I have never had a problem facing mech lists (To be fair that was one of the more easy match ups for Tau in 5th) - Now (by simply taking the standard tools of the trade for a Tau army) I can kill vehicles embarrasingly well! Its Nightfighting? Well, good job those Blacksun filters give me Nightvision, You have a Coversave? Well good job my Markerlights let me strip it down to 0, I just have to glance you to destroy you? Alrighty then!

A squad of Deathrains (Twinlinked Missile Pods with Target Arrays) costs me 159 points, with it I can kill pretty much any vehicle AV11 or under in a turn (And its not bad against AV12) - 6 S7 Missiles, Hitting on 3's and rerolling misses, (with 1 Marker token they are hitting on 2's) - its not unusual to get 6 hits. Against an AV10 Vehicle (even if it has a save) unless the dice gods hate me, its dead, against an AV11 vehicle - Its dead if I roll 3 4+'s on 6 dice....An AV12 Vehicle is dead if I roll 3 5+s on 6 dice..... AV13/!4 I have Fusion Blasters and Rail Guns....More than Likely to Pen and they have AP1 giving them plus 2 on the Damage Chart. If you get closer I have Rapid Firing Firewarriors, and Kroot - Most Vehicles are AV10 at the rear, so if I assualt a vehicle with 15 Kroot (Surrounding it so the troops inside cannot get out) I will hit on 3's with 45 attacks - 30 hits on average and a 6 to glance - 5 on average, vehicle dead (and any troops inside it) - Most armies with dedicated assualt troops will do that sort of thing better and faster too.

I have been looking at the Vehicles in my list at the moment, there is no point in paying 80 odd points for a Fusion Piranha with Ugprades anymore (it will die), Hammerheads could move 12 and fire the rail gun in 5th, but were more survivable then by far (so will drop them too), and Devilfish have only really been any good because my Fire Warriors did not have to get out of them to score...will drop them too - because now, they die to easily to make the large points cost I pay for them worth it. Luckily, I can fall back on Battlesuits and Broadsides, other armies dont have that luxury.

Vehicles needed to be nerfed, I dont disagree - in this case however the strength of the nerf bat is far far too strong - especially against AV12 and down. Anti Tank weapons will always be prevalent in the game, not just because they are Anti Tank weapons but because they Instant Kill annoying Characters and Hack down MC's. Take spacewolf longfangs for instance, they can fire a S8 AP3 Missile that Instagimps lots of things out there, and they can fire frag against Infantry - They are also awesome against vehicles. Meltas will still be taken for the same reason, there cheap and they have stopping power - Nerfing Vehicles is not going to take Anti Tank weapons away from the game, and when a vehicle dares show its face its dead. Assualt Marines and things like that will eat anything with rear armor 10 (the majority of vehicles) for breakfast in CC, and can get to them faster, and thing like assualt marines will be replacing the vehicle spam we see nowdays because the new rules set has improved them so much.

Vehicles are now vulnerable to CC, Shooting and Fliers as never before, the one strength that everyone keeps talking about is how the lack of glances now keeps your vehicles effective longer for the few turns they have to live, I think this is rubbish (sorry) all it means is your vehicles dieing sooner.

Yes, in 5th you had vehicles that could spend a turn not firing, but at least they had a chance of getting away! If you could closed down by assualters you could move your vehicle over flat out and the enemy was hitting you on 6's, they might get a glance or two, but you got to fall back alot of the time and live to fight another day. Now your vehicles might be more able to keep up fire early in the game, but they wont be around for the end of the game (Smoking, battle damaged, maybe unable to fire) but still around with a role to play, contesting that objective, tankshocking that opponent off his ground, drawing fire etc.

I think the nerfing of vehicles has gone too far, and I think the boost to all the specialist non vehicle units (bikes/Jetpacks etc) has gone too far the other way (Although it has become clearer to me now why GW made that big GreyKnight walker a MC rather than a vehicle). Yes, it needed to be done, but when you really look at it - its been done too well. I am with the OP the current hull point system is a nerf too far. And I say that as a Tau player that does not rely on vehicles for my list, whose vehicle killing power (already good) has risen exponentially and who fully agrees with alot of people here that something needed to be done to change the current 5th edition Mech Meta - I just dont think Hull points have provided a fair or realistic answer.

xerxeshavelock
02-07-2012, 19:55
I can't believe these Monstrous Creatures!! Its so unfair you just have to hit them a set number of times and they die! And some of them can be hurt by small arms.

I can't believe these new Vehicle rules!! Its so unfair you just have to hit them a set number of times and they die! And some of them can be hurt by small arms.

Pyriel
02-07-2012, 19:56
... people are still missing the point.

GW was ABSOLUTELY SURE to nerf vehicles to oblivion. It is how they operate. we were certain YEARS NOW, ever since mech started dominating 5th, that "next edition will ubernerf vehicles". do you know why they are so certain to be destroyed by haywaire/gauss? because GW ACTIVELY DOESNT WANT YOU TO PLAY MECH ANYMORE.

3rd was the rhino rush edition.
4th was the "elite infantry" edition.
5th was the "mech pillboxes" edition.
6th seems, just like 4th,to be an INFANTRY edition.
7th will (most likely, not certain) be another mech edition. etc, etc

we knew that. we knew that LONG before we ever read the rules. we see the changes, it is now the time for us to adapt. WHY are people complaining?

NO, the necrons wont destroy your vehicles! you just wont bring any!!! not all editions are like 5th, for the umpteenth time. 5th was the EXCEPTION, that the vehicles are worth anything, during the last decade of 40k. learn to play without vehicles. i spent YEARS in such an edition. it is simple.

Gonefishing
02-07-2012, 20:15
... people are still missing the point.

GW was ABSOLUTELY SURE to nerf vehicles to oblivion. It is how they operate. we were certain YEARS NOW, ever since mech started dominating 5th, that "next edition will ubernerf vehicles". do you know why they are so certain to be destroyed by haywaire/gauss? because GW ACTIVELY DOESNT WANT YOU TO PLAY MECH ANYMORE.

3rd was the rhino rush edition.
4th was the "elite infantry" edition.
5th was the "mech pillboxes" edition.
6th seems, just like 4th,to be an INFANTRY edition.
7th will (most likely, not certain) be another mech edition. etc, etc

we knew that. we knew that LONG before we ever read the rules. we see the changes, it is now the time for us to adapt. WHY are people complaining?

NO, the necrons wont destroy your vehicles! you just wont bring any!!! not all editions are like 5th, for the umpteenth time. 5th was the EXCEPTION, that the vehicles are worth anything, during the last decade of 40k. learn to play without vehicles. i spent YEARS in such an edition. it is simple.

This is true to an extent, vehicles will be disappearing from a tabletop near you soon.

Dont have my rulebook with me tonight (lent it to a friend who has not purchased it yet) but I am pretty sure (from memory) that buildings dont have Hull Points, so those players that used to buy landraiders can always buy GW's expensive "Fortress of redemption" (For 30 or 40 points less than a land raider). Which (from memory) comprises of 4 AV14 Bunkers, has more Fire Power than any tank out there, can be filled with troops and grants them a 3 plus coversave! .... Anyone would think GW wanted people to spend 140 quid on one of these so have made it quite good! (If It does have Hullpoints I withdraw my accusation of GW corporate cynicism, like I say, no rulebook tonight).

I get that GW wants to nerf vehicles this edition, but I really do think they screwed this one up, the nerfbat is far too heavy handed on this one - Nerf yes, unplayable - no.

(I think one of the main reasons people might be complaining is that they have gone out and spend hundreds of pounds on vehicles they now cant use effectively in game)

PS. Most of the MC's now (for nids certainly) have 6 wounds, vehicles have at most 4 and more likely 3 or 2. Also MC's Toughness does not go down correspondingly when they are assualted, and they get to fight back - MC now days against a dread in CC? My moneys on the MC every single time [that being said I think MC's are pretty gimped as well, despite some of the buff in 6th].

Rick Blaine
02-07-2012, 20:17
. learn to play without vehicles.

Or, alternatively, learn to play with vehicles.

Loki Prime
02-07-2012, 20:20
We're talking about a unit that costs 260 points with 24" guns and a 4+ armor. You also still need to hit, so 4 shots is roughly 2.2 glances/pens. Not enough to kill me in one turn most likely. If you're spending that going after a 35 point rhino then good on you. If you're going after a land raider then its carrying something nasty that can assault from the vehicle. All other vehicles can be effective from far far away.

That's the point. The Scourges are not included to kill vehicles. They aren't cheap but when used well/properly they are a brilliant unit. I find it funny you quote only a 4+ save, they have one of the best saves in the dark eldar codex, especially now Incubi took a big hit. They are a manouvourable anti-infantry unit that can react to the enemy very well. They throw out 20 shots at infantry up to 18 inches and don't care about toughness. They wouldn't be shooting at rhinos. They'd be wiping out infantry squads in unison with the rest of the army after other things have opened up the transports. The point is if someone brings a big expensive vehicle they can then choose to shoot that. And your post highlights my point. They do 2.2 glances/pens to a rhino and 2.2 glances/pens to a Landraider making the Landraider barely more survivable than a rhino.

Don't get me wrong. Vehicles needed nerfing. To me a simple solution would be to say AP1, 2 and 3 weapons remove a hull point on a glance, AP4,5 and 6 remove a hullpoint on glance on a 4+. This would make hull points much more balanced and prevent the autoglancing weapons running riot.

And I know all about target priority. I am a very active tournament player who often places well at high level tournaments.

I'm also not a doommonger. Hull points and allies are the only two introductions I dislike. I think 6th edition is actually a very well written ruleset and a good step up from 5th. I just feel sorry for anyone with big expensive vehicles as they are not going to see much use and if they do it will be being taken out of a case, put on a table then put back in the case a short while later.

Pyriel
02-07-2012, 20:27
good post Loki Prime;
though, tbh expensive vehicles were NEVER that good to begin with. in fact, a Land Raider is now in a BETTER spot than before:
in edition 5, a land raider was "food to the Meltas, and to nothing else".
in edition 5, a rhino was "food to the Meltas, and to every str 7+ weapon out there".
in edition 6, a land raider is "food to the meltas AND gauss/haywire/autoglance stuff".
in edition 6, a rhino is "food to the meltas AND gauss/haywire/autoglance stuff AND to every str 5/6 weapon out there".

in short, land raiders got nerfed but rhinos/light vehicles, the LR's competitors, got MORE nerfed.hence, land raiders, while still not very viable (like they were never very viable in 5th), are at just a SLIGHTLY better fate now.

knightofthewr
02-07-2012, 20:32
So you're saying that to avoid being killed by short range weapons that can instant kill you/get several glances with one round of shooting (haywire grenades, gauss weapons and the like) that the best tactic is to move closer to them? No wonder you hate this edition!

What's the range on a necron weapon anyway? Pretty sure most decent heavy tank weapons have a longer range than they can dish out.

It's not called cover for nothing.

Exactly, you only need to be within 25% cover to get a cover save. Rhino in front of land raider = land raider cover save. I think that if you are arguing that the land raider is now going to die if it gets to close to infantry, I would ask you were was the infantry supporting it.

Historically infantry counter attacking tanks that were unsupported were very effective. I did not say that 6th ed vehicles are not weaker, but just because hull points no longer makes them completely unkillable doesn't mean that vehicles are completely out of the picture. They do require more finess, planning, and tactical awareness to survive. Yes, I know some of you like crashing your lone land raider into an enemy battleline and emerging unscathed, but is that real or even the way you think it would go down in the fluff. How disappointing is it that vehicles seemed unkillable to your opponents?

Bergen Beerbelly
02-07-2012, 20:49
All of this doom and gloom about vehicles also does not take into account that there are no 6th edition codexes out yet. Who's to say if the new codexes don't have something in them that allow you to ignore glances? Or who's to say there aren't things in the new codexes to help vehicles survive better in some other way?...sure, right now the vehicle rules seem to be too dangerous to vehicles, but since we don't have any new 6th edition codexes, we don't really know now do we?

Torga_DW
02-07-2012, 21:04
IMO.
To achive better game ballance internaly and across all factions.
It would be adventageous to resolve damage of all units in a similar way.
Treating vehicles in a completley seperate way to other units is unecisary and over complicated the rules.

So if you are going to give vehicles 'wounds' (structure points,), why not give them saves and toughness and treat them the same as monstrous creatures/other units ?

OR extend the AV system to cover other units using a simple comparison resolution ...

But then I remember 40k is developed to market minatures directly ,short term.(The new rules editions just change the meta to cycle the most useful unit type to increase new sales.)

And so delivering a well defined consise and intuitive rule set is not in the development brief.And it realy shows ....:D

I'll chime in with my often unwanted opinion. Jervis said a while ago in a standard bearer that children like complicated systems, and are often better at picking them up than adults. With that in mind, look at how many systems they have in their games that are completely different to the 'standard' mechanics. Vehicle damage/armour in 40k. Cannons in fantasy (which are equivalent to bolt throwers). This may just be a total coincidence......

As for the original topic, can i take this moment to remind people that the hull point system isn't that different to previous systems back to 4th i believe. Each weapon destroyed (down to s4 i think) and immobilized added up. When all the eligible weapons were destroyed and the tank immobilized, it became a wreck (effectively destroyed). Weapon destroyed and immobilized translated into each other if the damage had already been suffered. A bit more random in execution than now, but still similar.

Bookwrak
02-07-2012, 21:14
Or, alternatively, learn to play with vehicles.

It's a seems that most of the people complaining about the nerf of hull points has yet to actually play a game of 6th edition, but why pass up a chance to play chicken little and complain about how awful the new edition is while they've got the chance? :D If they had, you wouldn't see silliness like people claiming land raider should have 8 hull points, because gawd, just four is barely different from a rhino. :wtf:

All I can say is that I was dreadfully disappointed at how my opponent's DW Raiders _refused_ to evaporate in the face of mass bolter fire, forcing me to fall back onto multimeltas and Exorcists to reliably kill vehicles. Unless you're loading your dice, combining the fact that unlike the fallacies a lot of the above posters have been indulging in, you cannot assume that your opponent is a *****, or that you are always going to be in the perfect position for inflicting damage, hull points are not the epic nerf that people are claiming it to be.

The internal balance has been reworked, and so far it seems to be going pretty well. The complaints are pretty much the same we heard at the end of 4th, when suddenly having skimmers leaping across the board at the bottom of turn six was no longer an unbeatable strategy, because of random turn lengths and new rules for controlling.

Daedalus81
02-07-2012, 21:18
I think they have made vehicles too weak with the hull points system, I dont disagree with anyone here that they needed to nerf vehicles and that the 40K parking lot was becoming a tiresome and repetative site of the battlefield, but that was only 1 aspect of vehicle heavy armies. Take for example an Ork Kanz list, fun to play against, good list (not in any way overpowered) - Now it really stands no chance at all - AV11 and 2 Hullpoints? Speaking as a Tau player I can do 6 Glances on a squadron of those without raising a sweat.


Killa Kanz are 17.5 points per hull point and suffer less being in a squad now. And thier piddly WS2 is decent against a WS1 tank.

How are you glancing 6 times without sweating? Smart missiles, burst cannons, and pulse rifles are all S5, which means you need AT LEAST 9-10 shots per glance. Unless you're wasting rail guns on them missile pods are your best bet and a twin linked one will cause .9 glances. That is a lot of firepower for on little 120-150 point unit. What are you going to do about the rest of his army? What if he has a KFF?

Rick Blaine
02-07-2012, 21:23
All I can say is that I was dreadfully disappointed at how my opponent's DW Raiders _refused_ to evaporate in the face of mass bolter fire, forcing me to fall back onto multimeltas and Exorcists to reliably kill vehicles.

I know, right? I played short edge deployment and I reached the opposite edge with a Heavy Flamer Land Speeder while being fired on by 2 squads of Noise Marines. Cover/Jink still goes a long way and is now so much easier to get, and ignoring glances as far as movement and shooting goes is amazing.

Gonefishing
02-07-2012, 21:58
Killa Kanz are 17.5 points per hull point and suffer less being in a squad now. And thier piddly WS2 is decent against a WS1 tank.

How are you glancing 6 times without sweating? Smart missiles, burst cannons, and pulse rifles are all S5, which means you need AT LEAST 9-10 shots per glance. Unless you're wasting rail guns on them missile pods are your best bet and a twin linked one will cause .9 glances. That is a lot of firepower for on little 120-150 point unit. What are you going to do about the rest of his army? What if he has a KFF?

Deathrains, I normally run TL MP's with Target arrays, add in markerlights and 2 squads of these will pull off 6 glances against a unit of Kanz (AV11) with no problems at all (if you have sacrificed a chicken to the dice gods before the game starts you could potentially do it with 1 squad). If they fail the Tau have plenty of back up S5 weapons to grab the last HP or two. Yes its alot of Firepower, but thats what Tau do - focus firepower on the immediate threat (if the Kanz are not an immediate threat I will be firing at the rest of the army / immediate threat).

Of course, thats looking purely at glancing, with TL Missile pods at BS5 all six are likely to hit, 2 of which should pen, remove a HP and give you a roll on the Damage Table.

warhammered_40k
02-07-2012, 22:06
Again to combat negativity, rule changes in this game have brought different overall play styles and models have gone in cycles. We should all just remember that when we are playing. If things just stayed the same over and over and nothing ever was changed about the way we play our armies, than this game would've died a long time ago. I thank GW for continuing to try new things with their gaming system.

I also think that the new changes have made this game far more cinematic than any of the previous iterations. You can kill what you shoot, you can hack what you can touch, you can lob grenades, and slam into combat, just to name a few. The new ED gives us a very rich battlefield rule set to start adding more complexity to our games, more flavor. To me it now seems like this game plays out more like a good action flick or video game.

Mughi3, with each release something has gotten better than something else. You have to learn to deal with change, it's simply part of life. If your local movie store that you have been going to for years closes down cause a new "bigger and better" one or delivery system takes it's place than you have to either A. Stop using the product completely, or B. Learn to use the new system or store.

Excalus
02-07-2012, 22:27
I'm a DE player and I actually really like the hull points. Before, if you glanced a vehicle it was basically, "whelp, I'm done with you for this turn" and we learned to ignore those vehicles for the turn - both the owner and the opponent. Now, glancing almost has a disappointing flavor to it since vehicles that were merely glanced can still pummel you during their turn. Counter-intuitively, i found my raiders are actually stronger than before, same going for enemy vehicles. It requires a more deliberate decision about how much fire you want to devote to mauling each vehicle.

big squig
02-07-2012, 22:34
Seems a bit strange that you haven't even played a game yet, but you are declaring the death of vehicles...

Spiney Norman
02-07-2012, 22:38
If you're taking rhinos I don't know why you're dicking around in them anyway. They're transports not pillboxes.

Those flyers aren't on the board turn 1 and will have a heck of a time getting a target turn 3 with careful premeasuring and planning. They can't capture objectives and they're not going to have enough shots in a game to wipe out larger units - especially not ones in cover that go to ground.

Oh and there are objectives you know.

Actually looking at the game currently I think the main role flyers are going to play is killing other flyers. If you have access to one you can't really afford not to take one in case you end up facing one and don't have access to anything else with skyfire. Also some flyers are very dangerous, the Doomscythe is one, and the storm talon can be a pain in the neck when nothing in your army can hit it.


good post Loki Prime;
though, tbh expensive vehicles were NEVER that good to begin with. in fact, a Land Raider is now in a BETTER spot than before:
in edition 5, a land raider was "food to the Meltas, and to nothing else".
in edition 5, a rhino was "food to the Meltas, and to every str 7+ weapon out there".
in edition 6, a land raider is "food to the meltas AND gauss/haywire/autoglance stuff".
in edition 6, a rhino is "food to the meltas AND gauss/haywire/autoglance stuff AND to every str 5/6 weapon out there".

in short, land raiders got nerfed but rhinos/light vehicles, the LR's competitors, got MORE nerfed.hence, land raiders, while still not very viable (like they were never very viable in 5th), are at just a SLIGHTLY better fate now.

The thing is, rhinos are 35 pts, at the very worst they are going to give your squad a turn of not being shot at, at best they will get you half way across the table to a place where your weapons work best without being shot at, even with the nerf they look pretty good for their cost.

Land raiders on the other hand cost 7 times that much. Being able to auto-glance a LR was never a problem before because the number of glances you needed to destroy one was huge, something like 7 weapon destroyed/immobilise results, so upwards of 20 glances on average, now you can do the same with only 4 glances, so they've effectively had their survivability vs glancing hits cut by 80%, on a 250pt tank that is huge.

The problem is that rhinos are much easier to pen than LRs, but both can be relatively easily glanced by using rules like gauss and haywire (and even lance), the risk of a LR falling to a pen hit is still about the same as ever it was, it's glances that give you an easy way of popping them with relatively little effort.

murgel2006
02-07-2012, 22:50
I don't know if I'd call them "epic fail," but they aren't very good. There should simply have been a Glance Chart and a Penetration Chart. The Glance Chart should have read like this:

1. Shaken
2. Stunned
3. Hull Point (+Shaken/Stunned)
4. Weapon Destroyed (+Hull Point)
5. Disabled
6. Wrecked

The following is my personal opinion, no bashing or blaming and no insults are intended.

Oh, please not! this would have done nothing to change the main problem of vehicles. rendered Stunned/shaken for all the game. What a silly idea.
A glance chard should have looked like this:
1-5 nothing
6 lucky hit vehicle explodes.

So maybe I will suggest this instead of Hull points. I mean it would be nice to have my AV10 Walkers and Vypers survive and be useful.

Why are AV13/14 vehicles allowed to whine again?



... Historically the bane of tanks has always been infantry with tank busting equipment. So it doesn't bother me at all when I see this happening in this game.

Yeah, it's scary getting your vehicles charged by someone that can damage them. But, like in real life, you adapt, overcome, and learn from the mistakes of the past. Vehicles can be screened from chargers by your troops being in the way of the people who want to charge them. Tanks can go back to being what they were designed for in the first place...support platforms to help the infantry win battles.


Well said, any Infantry man can attest to that. In any conflict it has always been the infantry who won the battle. this is represented by the rules to some extent.



Historically infantry counter attacking tanks that were unsupported were very effective. ... They (vehicles) do require more finess, planning, and tactical awareness to survive.

see above


Yes, I know some of you like crashing your lone land raider into an enemy battleline and emerging unscathed, but is that real or even the way you think it would go down in the fluff. How disappointing is it that vehicles seemed unkillable to your opponents?

Like me? I had to pay loads for a weapon to even have a chance to shoot your LR or buy a suicide-squad plus transport etc.
And know what. That has not changed as the darn LR has AV14 all around.

ForgottenLore
02-07-2012, 22:53
It's a seems that most of the people complaining about the nerf of hull points has yet to actually play a game of 6th edition,


Seems a bit strange that you haven't even played a game yet, but you are declaring the death of vehicles...

OK, I think the OP is dead wrong here but I have to jump in and defend him on this.

He has repeatedly commented (including in the original post) that his opinion is based on actual play experience (of multiple games) and has been criticizing those who are defending hull points based solely on mathhammer reasons and it is pretty unfair of you guys to go accusing him of that.

By all means, argue with him. I think HP are a really good system, but don't go accusing him of just theory hammering without any justification when he has clearly stated the opposite.





And I don't think you've really thought through how easy it is to glance a vehicle.

12 Necron warriors rapid firing at a Landraider, Zahndrek gives them Tank hunters

24 shots, 16 hits, 2.7 glances,
tank hunter rerolls, an additional 2.2 glances, on average a total of approx 5 glancing hits... Dead land raider, from a 12 man troop squad costing about half the value of the tank.

I'm not suggesting vehicles should be as tough to kill as they were previously, but you may as well no bring any vehicles when you're fighting Necrons.
...

Flyers stand more of a chance because they are so damn hard to hit for most things, but again Necrons have the perfect answer: CCB and Doom Scythes will rip apart any enemy flyers in short order. And this is me as a Necron player talking.

Sounds to me like your actual problem is with Necrons, not Hull Points. If a rules change fixes a serious problem in a (reasonably) balanced way for every army except one that has a particular special rule or class of weapon that is problematic, I would say it is that army that is the issue, not the general rules change. (alright, possibly 2 armies, gauss and haywire, but the principle is the same.)

Spiney Norman
02-07-2012, 23:01
That's all very well, but to be worth it's points LRs need 6-8 hull points minimum, and perhaps a way to get them back (interesting to see that Necron overlords/spyders can repair HPs but rhino repairs can't).

If the great armoured behemoth is going to stay so easy to glance to death it needs to half in points cost. Same with the monolith, I was still fielding the lith as a virtually impregnable mobile terrain piece, but now they are so easy to pop with glances I'll be leaving it on the shelf or using as a counts-as xeno bastion.

Konovalev
02-07-2012, 23:45
Where did all the players who went "waaaaah my footslogging army is useless!" from last edition go? We need to get them in here to wade through the tears and clear out this gloomy lot. Unless... those players who whined last edition about infantry are now whining about vehicles, wouldn't that be a shyamalan twist.

I'm happy with hullpoints. Vehicles don't get shut down from a single hit, and people who don't think and just move their vehicles straight forward every turn decorate the board with their wonderful wreckage.

Ulrig
02-07-2012, 23:49
Vehicles should have more hull points, a little too easy to down in my opinion.
Necrons are going to be stupid powerful. I do not see them changing their ability.

Chief Librarian Zypher
03-07-2012, 00:12
This. In a bucket. :)

Agreed. ..... and Walkers have a WS, so you don't always hit them on a 3 btw

ForgottenLore
03-07-2012, 00:27
Where did all the players who went "waaaaah my footslogging army is useless!" from last edition go? We need to get them in here to wade through the tears and clear out this gloomy lot. Unless... those players who whined last edition about infantry are now whining about vehicles, wouldn't that be a shyamalan twist.

What are you talking about? This thread is like 2, maybe 3 people complaining about hull points and 50 people defending HPs because they stop the mech spam of last edition. All the people you are insulting have been praising the entire idea for a week non-stop.

Bonzai
03-07-2012, 00:57
I had my first 6th edition game last night. It was a team game, and I played my Shooty Cron list, and my partner went with Wraith Wing. Our opponents were CSMs and Jump Infantry BA's. The game it's self was fun. However, I really took the wind out of the CSM players sails. Turn 1, I had popped all 4 rhinos and had wiped out two full squads, killed all but 2 in another, and left only his plague marines unscathed. His two princes got tied up in assault, and the only thing he had left were two predators and a pair of obliterators out of his 2k army (and a Hellblade in reserve). Again, this was all turn 1! His Predators lasted no more than 2 turns once I was in range from a lance court and a hvy destroyer squad each focusing on one, and his Hellblade was taken down by my anhilliation barge the turn after it came in.

I kind of felt bad, as it seemed almost two easy to gut him. Especially after wiping out over a third of his army in one round of shooting. The BA player faired better, and ended up pulling out a draw thanks to a blob squad of guard allies left on the back objective.

I found my first game of 6th to be fun, and different. However vehicles are much more fragile now. My list was designed to take out the parking lots in 5th, and now rapes vehicles even harder core now in 6th.

ForgottenLore
03-07-2012, 01:14
And how much was due to you taking necrons, which pretty much everyone has acknowledged are too powerful at killing vehicles now? Seriously, try and think how much damage you would have done without the gauss rule in effect.




My list was designed to take out the parking lots in 5th, and now rapes vehicles even harder core now in 6th.

This. A list super optimized for killing lots of vehicles should, you know, kill lots of vehicles.

The purpose of hull points is to make it so that you won't ALWAYS be facing lots of vehicles.

gutsmaka
03-07-2012, 01:19
personally, I like hull points. it shifts the meta a bit, so armies will be different from 5th ed. this is good because it evolvs the game. no need for new rules if the game uses the same tactics and the same lists.

Caitsidhe
03-07-2012, 01:57
I still say (and predict) that the changes will only increase Rhino spam and ensure that in a short period of time you will never see a Land Raider on the board. :) I don't think these rules will discourage Mech-Spam at all, only increase what was already happening. At Ardboyz Semi-Finals I didn't see a single Land Raider. They are not cost effective. Already in 5th we assumed most of our vehicles were throw away. I did see a LOT of Rhinos (and a few Stormravens). I suspect we will continue to see a lot of throw away Rhinos and a whole lot less Dreadnaughts, Land Raiders, and misc. weapon platform tanks. The exceptions, of course, will be the IG types which sit back on their side of the board and do saturation bombing for the first two turns.

itcamefromthedeep
03-07-2012, 03:21
In the meta dreadnoughts are now likely to be used as terminator killers.:eyebrows:


Honestly, the only thing hull points hurt was the one army type that people were hoping to see improved : Combined arms. The full mech and full foot armies aren't really affected by it but the armies that use. One or two vehicles will watch them get wrecked left and right.Full mech armies seem to be affected by it, telling from reports.


I should have clarified by saying after the new tyranid codex was released. The actual transition to 5th with the 4th edition nid codex was not terrible. I played a fairly mixed list that was lighter on MCs and heavier on warriors and stealers and actually faired decently due to old way synapse functioned with warriors and all the templates we could drop with spitters.Ah, such fond memories.


The difference between a Rhino and a land raider is one hull point, whatever were they thinking?One Hull Point and a truckload of armor, that is.


If it is the Necron's niche to pWn vehicles, they may very well end up being pretty weak in 6th edition. Seems like nothing short of an autocannon can do enough damage to completely turn vehicles upside down. Don't even get me started on anti-armor weapons like blasters, rail guns, meltaguns, lascannons, meltabombs, DCCWs, mawloks.Wait... Mawlocs? :wtf:


So if you are going to give vehicles 'wounds' (structure points,), why not give them saves and toughness and treat them the same as monstrous creatures/other units ?I do believe we have a winner.

Vehicles just don't follow enough of the rules. I'd be happy to let vehicles get things like 4+, 3+ and 2+ armor saves in exchange for the ability to engage troops that disembark from a transport that gets wrecked in close combat.


Those flyers aren't on the board turn 1 and will have a heck of a time getting a target turn 3 with careful premeasuring and planning. They can't capture objectives [...]...or contest objectives either. This, barring the missions that allow vehicles to score.


Actually they are mobile pill boxes, nothing more. With extended charge ranges, the only point to most vehicles is to get the best fighting troops across the board to assault and table the guys who sit back (normally those less melee-inclined troops). [...] The point is that I have the 1st Turn to get across the board under the normal ridiculous fire while I still have Night Rules (at least half the missions) and before the Planes show up. My point, is that the new rules don't discourage MSU or Rhino Spam, they lock it in as the only viable strategy.This seems silly to me. Rushing up to optimal range so that you can get shot out of your transport and then shot to death and/or assaulted is a poor plan.

What you're suggesting is like Deep Striking your entire army in front of the enemy... which rarely goes well.


Dont have my rulebook with me tonight (lent it to a friend who has not purchased it yet) but I am pretty sure (from memory) that buildings dont have Hull Points, so those players that used to buy landraiders can always buy GW's expensive "Fortress of redemption" (For 30 or 40 points less than a land raider). Which (from memory) comprises of 4 AV14 Bunkers, has more Fire Power than any tank out there, can be filled with troops and grants them a 3 plus coversave! .... Anyone would think GW wanted people to spend 140 quid on one of these so have made it quite good! (If It does have Hullpoints I withdraw my accusation of GW corporate cynicism, like I say, no rulebook tonight).Grenades can be thrown into buildings through fire points, doing D6 hits with the grenade's stat to the building and the guys inside, D3 if there's no blast.

So a squad of 10 Guardsmen with krak grenades does 10D3 S6 AP4 hits. Melta bombs will just bring the building down, doing a staggering number of hits and wounds as well as having a distinct chance of wiping the defenders out as they try to disembark.


(I think one of the main reasons people might be complaining is that they have gone out and spend hundreds of pounds on vehicles they now cant use effectively in game)That's a reasonable complaint. However, for now I think that "can't" is due to a lack of skill rather than stat line.

It looks like a lot of players need to bring more large, LOS-blocking terrain pieces so that vehicles can actually hide.


Or, alternatively, learn to play with vehicles.:)

Spell_of_Destruction
03-07-2012, 04:18
I think hull points are fine for heavily armoured vehicles (AV13-14) and light vehicles (AV10-11). The former can still rely on their high AV to prevent too many glancing hits and the latter don't really suffer too much in terms of survivability (although I guess it does make massed S4 fire considerably better against AV10) as most of the time they would suffer penetrating hits.

The vehicles hurt by hull points are expensive, moderately armoured vehicles (AV12) such as Eldar grav tanks.

Bookwrak
03-07-2012, 04:32
He has repeatedly commented (including in the original post) that his opinion is based on actual play experience (of multiple games) and has been criticizing those who are defending hull points based solely on mathhammer reasons and it is pretty unfair of you guys to go accusing him of that.
*shrug* That's what he says, but his arguments point to a certain dearth of actual play experience.

Inquisitor Shego
03-07-2012, 04:39
I do a raider rush / ravager rush. Played my first game today in 6th ed, against a Chaos Rhino Rush. Felt nice being able to pop tanks, and hull points are no real biggy for me. My irk more than anything is flyers being the new big thing, yet so few armies having a sufficient anti-flyer option beyond take their own flyer. Especially for DE when our splinter weapons cannot hurt vehicles. Still, these things take time, and aircraft have their problems too. I loved bringing my razorwing jetfighter on the table. It felt like I was suddenly playing Battlefleet Gothic.

My one complaint is how vulnerable dreadnoughts are though. I don't play them, but I can really see cheap grenades decimating the vehicles, and anything close-combat based is going to suffer for it, like the Death Company dread. It makes me wonder if maybe they should abolish dreadnoughts and make them all monstrous creatures as a small trade off. A dangerous thing to say I know but I look at the Nemesis Dreadknight and say to myself "that has to be a vehicle."

Still, I know next to nothing about games development. I don't know if I like 6th Ed yet, but I can say that first game has left me hungry for more

Athlan na Dyr
03-07-2012, 07:05
This. A list super optimized for killing lots of vehicles should, you know, kill lots of vehicles.
The purpose of hull points is to make it so that you won't ALWAYS be facing lots of vehicles.

+1 to this.
We cannot definitively state that mech is dead yet as currently most lists would be anti-mech or at least have a strong showing in the anti-tank component. That they are effective against mech is a good sign balance wise. Hopefully the same list is weak to an infantry focussed list which in turn the mechanised one can pick apart.

On Land Raiders and 'glancing' weaponry (gauss, haywire and so on)
The sum difference between these weapons and meltaguns are what exactly (aside from how Xenos carry them instead of IG vets)? The Land Raider is still resilient to all but the very best long ranged anti-tank, but is now faster as well, so it can avoid infantry or jump infantry armed with short ranged AT gear should it have to. Add to this the comparitive gains it has for embarked assault troops and ease of cover and it remains a powerful linebreaker, but one that requires support against a prepared enemy, as it always has.

To be honest I think the changes to vehicles and assaulting will have a far greater effect than Hull Points.

Arandmoor
03-07-2012, 07:21
Been playing 40K for over 10 years, i run late night gaming at my local store, i am usually there for 14+ hours so yes we got several play test games in as well as my ability to compare my 5th ed experience with how that translates to 6th.

My last game of 5th against necrons that went 7 turns last weekend which i won by a 2KP to 7KP margin i would have lost on turn 3 by the 6th ed rules simply based on the number of glancing hits i took since i run a themed mechanised siege list.

you misunderstanding GW marketing strategy-they need to sell new models that = flyers in 6th. flyers are harder to hit, and cannot be assaulted unless they go to 'hover mode' maing them far more surivable than any ground vehicle. they also bumped up the effectivenessof bikes and jump infantry=more sales.

A person like me who has built 7 armies over the years and still retains a 5,000+ point DIY themed marine force doesnt need to buy anything else.....unless of course you completely destroy the viability of my army build to try and force me to spend more. i am not willing to do the latter so i will play 5th or i will play 6th with a tweaked damage table or not play it at all. i have lots of other game systems i could be playing that dont make me feel like i am getting shafted.

No, no misunderstanding.

I'm going to point out a few things with your arguments. Okay, first, yes. GW destroyed your army. Specifically your army.

And I'm going to prove it.

1. GW releases codex A for edition X.

2. The mathhammer geeks get their hands on codex A for edition X and pound out the best, most abusive lists they can devise. In addition to this, they figure out the most abusive tactics available for edition X. All this information gets published to the internet where anyone can see it.

3. You read this information put on the web by the mathhammer geeks and build your list with what they have stated is "the most effective strategy": A themed mechanized siege list, because vehicles were very much OP in 5th ed.

4. GW collects feedback from its players about edition X. This includes information about what they messed up on. The abuses, and parts of the edition that were maybe a bit too powerful in small doses, and made it past QA (who didn't have the time to test mech-heavy lists thoroughly, or who simply didn't think they would be as broken as they turned out to be).

5. GW makes edition Y, and fixes the issues that caused the abuses in edition X because that's not how the game was meant to work.

6. When edition Y is released, the people that played codex A in edition X and abused the rules that are now fixed find that their armies no longer function.

7. Said players then head to the internet to vent their frustrations.

Vehicles in 5th ed were broken when taken in numbers. Especially when taken against armies that didn't have much in the way of AV firepower. You knew that, and you made a mech list anyway (calling it a themed list to make it sound like you're being an artist or something rather than abusing the rules for an advantage). GW broke your army specifically, because vehicles were way too good. They're supposed to support an army. Not replace it. If you had enough infantry on the board to not be abusing the broken 5th ed mech rules, we wouldn't be having this conversation in the first place.

What I'm saying, is that they didn't wreck your army for money. You did it to yourself when you decided to build an abusive list. If your list wasn't abusive, then there shouldn't be a problem once you get used to the new rules and acclimate to the idea that vehicle longevity doesn't favor the vehicles any more (also, like I said, they were way too powerful anyway for how survivable they were).

Also, the inclusion of flyers is not a bad thing. Not from a game perspective, and not from a monitary perspective. Not from their, or our perspectives. As games like this mature they introduce new things. Flyers are good because they add a new dimension to play.


I'm stunned that people haven't been QQing this hard about the fortifications they added. You can buy your IG gunline a fortress now. Oh...and most fortifications have AA gun options. So, if you don't want flyers, and you don't have any AA guns, you do have a recourse besides BS1 shooting.

rocdocta
03-07-2012, 07:21
As a long time necron player i think that its great to see people again fear our gauss. it has gone from OMG! thats so OP!! to OMG thats slightly annoying...to OMG!! Necrons are so OP! its good to be back!

Ohris
03-07-2012, 07:24
I played my first game with eldar against necrons no less and my vehicles lasted pretty well... I had 2 walkers, 2 wave serpents and 2 fire prisms and on turn 7 when the game ended I still had a Prism and wave serpent alive... Couple turns before (on turn 5) I still had 2 Prisms, 1 wave serpent, 1 walkers left...

(and yes I lost badly but I dont think it was because of hull points)

I was not that bad...Also I had wrecked 2 of the necrons vehicles including a nightscythe... and I would have NEVER destroyed the flyer without hull points (just barely caused 3 hull point damage to it... last one with pathfinders)


I might agree however that a bit more hull points (1-2 more) might have been better...

Gonefishing
03-07-2012, 07:40
:eyebrows:

Grenades can be thrown into buildings through fire points, doing D6 hits with the grenade's stat to the building and the guys inside, D3 if there's no blast.

So a squad of 10 Guardsmen with krak grenades does 10D3 S6 AP4 hits. Melta bombs will just bring the building down, doing a staggering number of hits and wounds as well as having a distinct chance of wiping the defenders out as they try to disembark.

That's a reasonable complaint. However, for now I think that "can't" is due to a lack of skill rather than stat line.



So what do people without melta bombs do? (ie. every non imperial codex) - Even Necron Gauss weaponry is completely ineffective against buildings, the only way to stop a fortress of redemption is too blow it apart at range. Buildings are now very very very resiliant and in the fortresses case pack more firepower than most tanks and have AA guns for a very low price. Expect to see a fortress replacing that tank parking lot soon! Anyone would think GW wanted to sell them.....

I would argue with the lack of skill argument, yes there are going to be "tricks" to using vehicles in 6th, which people will pick up on - this may even make them more effective (Although so far the main arument for HP's seems to be that tanks can fire effectively for the 1-3 turns they are on the table) - If you spend the game hiding tanks from LOS they are no longer going to be firing effectively, if they cant be seen they cant see. A 35point Rhino might still get used, I certainly wont be using a 80 - 100 point devilfish anymore, I cant claim/contest objectives with it, I dont want to use it transport ability to get close to the enemy and its about as survivable a blind 3 legged elephant walking across a minefield.

Spiney Norman
03-07-2012, 07:45
+1 to this.
We cannot definitively state that mech is dead yet as currently most lists would be anti-mech or at least have a strong showing in the anti-tank component. That they are effective against mech is a good sign balance wise. Hopefully the same list is weak to an infantry focussed list which in turn the mechanised one can pick apart.

On Land Raiders and 'glancing' weaponry (gauss, haywire and so on)
The sum difference between these weapons and meltaguns are what exactly (aside from how Xenos carry them instead of IG vets)? The Land Raider is still resilient to all but the very best long ranged anti-tank, but is now faster as well, so it can avoid infantry or jump infantry armed with short ranged AT gear should it have to. Add to this the comparitive gains it has for embarked assault troops and ease of cover and it remains a powerful linebreaker, but one that requires support against a prepared enemy, as it always has.

To be honest I think the changes to vehicles and assaulting will have a far greater effect than Hull Points.

The difference between gauss/haywire and melta is that by and large you have 2 or 3 melta guns in a squad (with the exception of FDs) and they can only pen a LR at 6" away. Gauss is carried by every member of the squad and can glance to death at 24". Haywire guns are less prolific, but are still much more effective at much longer range. Even with a penning hit from a melta gun you still only have a 50% chance of melting the vehicle, there is no roll for glancing hits, you strip the hull point automatically.

The changes to assault are going to exacerbate the problem more, haywire grenades on any unit are going to be instant death for any vehicle in assault. The only vehicles that can reliably survive in 6 are going to be flyers.

Banville
03-07-2012, 08:24
Reading the Op's, well, OP, I think he and his friends might have misread the walker rules. They still use their weapon skill. A Venerable Dreadnought is still WS5. Also, don't walk your dreads through terrain, unless they're Ironclads and then you shouldn't be worried too much cos Armour 13 is very hard to get through. I think Fire Suppoart Dreads will see a big upswing in popularity. With glances not affecting your ability to shoot, having two lasconnon/missile launcher dreads sitting in cover in the back field blazing away seems awfully effective.....

Zinch
03-07-2012, 09:16
The difference between gauss/haywire and melta is that by and large you have 2 or 3 melta guns in a squad (with the exception of FDs) and they can only pen a LR at 6" away. Gauss is carried by every member of the squad and can glance to death at 24". Haywire guns are less prolific, but are still much more effective at much longer range. Even with a penning hit from a melta gun you still only have a 50% chance of melting the vehicle, there is no roll for glancing hits, you strip the hull point automatically.

The changes to assault are going to exacerbate the problem more, haywire grenades on any unit are going to be instant death for any vehicle in assault. The only vehicles that can reliably survive in 6 are going to be flyers.

Yes, we get it, Necrons will own vehicles in this edition. You don't need to repeat it every 2 posts in this thread.

This doesn't mean the hull mechanic is wrong, but maybe that the gauss one is not well balanced in this new edition rules.

Vehicles being destroyed in combat by a 10 man unit with grenades designed to destroy vehicles don't seem a fail of the sistem to me...

Ruination Drinker
03-07-2012, 09:43
Thanks guys, I just go the most sinister idea.

Get a Fortress of Redemption and fill it Pedro and 2 squads of HF and Plasma gun vets in the lower bunkers and a squad of ML devs in the tower. Buy 3 Laz RB's and park them around the fort so they can group their shots and get maximum cover while the Fort drops St8 Ap3 boom missiles every turn and the devs cut loose 4 rockets a turn. The TL Icarus cannon can keep the heat off and there's still points left to buy Pedro for 10 Assault troops with 2 Flamers and a Sgt. with SS+TH to give his ever popular +1A to. All for 1500 points!

When it gets down to the last few turns the vets can hop off the walls and into the RBs to go grab objectives.

Sounds like a great way to lose friends! :evilgrin:

xerxeshavelock
03-07-2012, 10:14
Grenades can be thrown into buildings through fire points, doing D6 hits with the grenade's stat to the building and the guys inside, D3 if there's no blast.

So a squad of 10 Guardsmen with krak grenades does 10D3 S6 AP4 hits. Melta bombs will just bring the building down, doing a staggering number of hits and wounds as well as having a distinct chance of wiping the defenders out as they try to disembark.


Is that over-ridden by the rule that says only one shooter can throw a grenade per turn?

mughi3
03-07-2012, 10:18
So you have 7 armies over 10 years one of which is 5k of marines and yet you cannot build an army that doesn't need tanks, thereby negating your issues here?
Sorry, but I am confused.
Some of us LIKE certain play styles. i like small elite themed mechanised lists ( i wrote up a full fluff section for my chapter and why it uses the units it does) that are resiliant. aside from my nids all my armies have been mechanised. now i have an army i really like to play for the last couple of editions that usually did pretty well at surviving and dishing out damage that is effectively slaughtered via hull points if i put it on the table in 6th.

xerxeshavelock
03-07-2012, 10:26
Some of us LIKE certain play styles. i like small elite themed mechanised lists ( i wrote up a full fluff section for my chapter and why it uses the units it does) that are resiliant. aside from my nids all my armies have been mechanised. now i have an army i really like to play for the last couple of editions that usually did pretty well at surviving and dishing out damage that is effectively slaughtered via hull points if i put it on the table in 6th.

See, I haven't played much 6th yet, but I think the only lists that will suffer are those that have 5 man squads that don't do anything. And I always thought that was naff. If you have effective Infantry they can support the armour and vice versa. Of course, they might have to get out more than in 5th, but hey, thats not exactly a problem right? Thats why they make such pretty figures, and why we work so hard to paint them.

CrownAxe
03-07-2012, 10:29
Some of us LIKE certain play styles. i like small elite themed mechanised lists ( i wrote up a full fluff section for my chapter and why it uses the units it does) that are resiliant. aside from my nids all my armies have been mechanised. now i have an army i really like to play for the last couple of editions that usually did pretty well at surviving and dishing out damage that is effectively slaughtered via hull points if i put it on the table in 6th.

And some of us liked to play infantry heavy armies that ended get slaughtered by mech lists in 5ed

GW isnt here to caiter to what you want. GW is here to sell the game they want and they wanted mech lists to be at less prevalent.

mughi3
03-07-2012, 11:40
Ah where to begin

first bookwrak.


*shrug* That's what he says, but his arguments point to a certain dearth of actual play experience.

I probably play more games combined than most of the people that have posted in this topic just due to the amount of time i spend RUNNING late night gaming at my local game store. i am usually there for 14+ hours every weekend playing games for most of the night(grant not all 40K, i do like variety) So yes i have actually had quite alot of play experience against every faction and every kind of army build you can imagine. i have also been at this since 3rd editon so i have seen how armies and vehicles in general perform.


Arandmoor......
what an amazingly ignorant and condecending post you managed to make. as a matter of fact i ended up beating down our local player who used several "internet win button" spam armies with my own themed list that i was told over and over again wasn't effective because unit A costs to much and would never get its points back and so forth. thats not to say i have not lost games, i've lost a bunch but it was usualy a pretty darn good fight.

So other than being completely wrong on just about everything you posted by assuming my behavior, as it so happens i just looked through the codex and found an optional army build i liked based around minis i like the look of. thats does not mean i would not use them in a manner that would be effective on the tabletop to an extent but also enjoyable for me as a player to actually use.

this was my GT list in early 5th-

http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i112/mughi3/020.jpg

i didnt go to win the overall tourney i went to play and see cool armies. i even had a fighting chance with some good games against so called internet lists.

It was a fun list however it didn't let me go "all the way" in making a dread army...so when IA 10 came out(as our game store fully uses all GW stuff including FW) i went out and got it because it had my dream army list in it in the form of the siege army. i could finally take dreads as troops. didnt give a crap if they couldn't score. i enjoyed playing this army because it was tough but it was also fun to play as a small elite force.


So excuse me if i vent a bit when GW turns my entire resiliant army of very points heavy units that also cost a good bit of cash into tissue paper.

I have dedicated CC dreads that now fear CC and spend the game trying to hide like all the other vehicles in the game will now be doing (save mabey rhinos) and if you look at them funny they die in a manner that feels like you didn't even have to try and work at it.

Honestly it is a little salt in the wound, GW did this to me once before with my beloved ravenwing. suddenly making the bulk of the army i HAD to take to fit fluff no longer legal to use with the 4th ed codex. foolishly i sold off most of those, wont happen this time i just wont break my dreads out again unless somebody wants to play 5th ed. or 7th edition de-nerfs vehicles.



Reading the Op's, well, OP, I think he and his friends might have misread the walker rules. They still use their weapon skill. A Venerable Dreadnought is still WS5. Also, don't walk your dreads through terrain, unless they're Ironclads and then you shouldn't be worried too much cos Armour 13 is very hard to get through. I think Fire Suppoart Dreads will see a big upswing in popularity. With glances not affecting your ability to shoot, having two lasconnon/missile launcher dreads sitting in cover in the back field blazing away seems awfully effective.....

Banville i know walker rules quite well. yes they have a WS but it does not change the fact that CC dreads will tend to be dead before they get into CC and even if they do make it into CC, the fact grenades and bombs all plant on WS now sent the survivabilty rate through the floor when coupled with hull points.

Forests-carnivorous forests do S5 hits against REAR armor, so yeah my AV13 is great if it hit me in the front or the sides. :P

Your right however i see las/missile/auto cannon dreads sitting in terrain hoping for a cover save and having a tech marine with some servitors hanging out behind them hoping they live long enough for him to make some repairs as about the only thing dreads will be good for in 6th.

Welcome back to the gunline ala 3rd ed.

Aluinn
03-07-2012, 12:24
Are you really surprised that GW wouldn't take IA lists into consideration for balance purposes, and particularly one-dimensional ones that involved spamming certain unit types? Now, granted, I take your word for it that you weren't spamming in a powergamey way or even for advantage at all, but the principle remains: If you do this, for whatever reason, you leave yourself very susceptible to huge swings in balance with any rules change, because anything that affects that one type of unit that you're taking tons of is going to be assumed by the rules developers to affect parts of armies, whilst in your case it affects your entire army (or at least near enough).

Furthermore IA lists aren't "official" from the standpoint of the studio and they just aren't going to balance around them, period. They balance around what they themselves produce; Forge World has entirely different rules people (who often frankly fail pretty hard, IMO, cf current Fantasy Chaos Dwarfs). You're certainly free to use them as long as opponents don't object or the TO approves it or whatever, but being shocked when GW-proper rules changes invalidate them or nerf them to oblivion doesn't seem reasonable.

blameless
03-07-2012, 12:27
this was my GT list in early 5th-

http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i112/mughi3/020.jpg

First of all let me say I LOVE YOUR ARMY! Awesome when people take what they like the look of... Hence me fielding to many assault marines, terminators and dreads... Also rarely winning games...


Welcome back to the gunline ala 3rd ed.

I hope not, after reading the rules and throwing some dice around all this week I am anxious to play now and get some months of sifting under my belt. Your comment here is not my impressions yet. Maybe time will reveal otherwise but I think that it is more balanced than that...

TomsDad
03-07-2012, 12:33
Some of us LIKE certain play styles. i like small elite themed mechanised lists ( i wrote up a full fluff section for my chapter and why it uses the units it does) that are resiliant. aside from my nids all my armies have been mechanised. now i have an army i really like to play for the last couple of editions that usually did pretty well at surviving and dishing out damage that is effectively slaughtered via hull points if i put it on the table in 6th.

It sounds like that your preference happened to be very well suited to 5th edition, and is now less powerful in 6th. Basically you over specialised (nothing wrong in that), but being less powerful than you were before does not prove HPs are wrong.

Basically to get a true opinion on HPs we need more than just the opinion of the guy who ran elite mechanised armies who by definition has the most to lose and least to gain.

Bookwrak
03-07-2012, 12:36
Ah where to begin

first bookwrak.

I'm not sure if you're deliberately misreading me, but I was talking about 6th edition, which again, your post above paints a picture that you're assuming how things will play out without actual play experience, or even paying attention to the actual rules to back up. Your comment about dreads is pretty telling.

Hulkster
03-07-2012, 12:43
I think it has happened to every 'old' gamer at some point, the army we loved to play being useless in our eyes.

It happened to me in 8th ed with Orcs and Goblins, now I dont hate hate the codex, but I could not make a single list I would like to play out of that book.

It happened to me moving from 2nd to 3rd with my Ravenwing. It happened from 4th to 5th with my Tau. It happened from 6th to 7th with my Dwarves.

I personally like hull points, and I am massive Dread fan. I do feel it has made them much weaker, but over all the rule is great, I think it is the units that need fine tuning, not the rule itself.

I can understand why you are annoyed, but really the rule is a benefit to the system, at least from what I have played so far, though it does weaken your army I dont think you can say hull points are epic fail.

BooTMGSG
03-07-2012, 13:04
Banville i know walker rules quite well. yes they have a WS but it does not change the fact that CC dreads will tend to be dead before they get into CC and even if they do make it into CC, the fact grenades and bombs all plant on WS now sent the survivabilty rate through the floor when coupled with hull points.

Forests-carnivorous forests do S5 hits against REAR armor, so yeah my AV13 is great if it hit me in the front or the sides. :P

Your right however i see las/missile/auto cannon dreads sitting in terrain hoping for a cover save and having a tech marine with some servitors hanging out behind them hoping they live long enough for him to make some repairs as about the only thing dreads will be good for in 6th.

Welcome back to the gunline ala 3rd ed.

Ok with the rules on Fliers bikes and jetbikes I suspect that we will see more than gunlines.
Dreds vs Grenades.
1.) they only get one attack.
2.) They need to be WS5 to hit on a 3+
3.) Krak are Str6 so thats a 6 to drop a HP
4.) Melta Str8, ok these can hurt, but they should. Even then they are a.) rare, and b) Not as good as a bog standard Terminator Squad.

Assuming Krak, A unit of 10 will hit 5 and that 0.83 Hps, thats hardly through the floor.
Seriously this is what should happen when you throw a block of steel into a unit of infantry. Dead infantry, but with a few dents in return.

The whole problem with your response is its filled with whine and hyperbole.
"Landraider as survivable as a Guards man" yeah yeah:rolleyes:
"Forests-carnivorous forests do S5 hits against REAR armor, so yeah my AV13 is great if it hit me in the front or the sides. :P" Serriously are you thumbing through the book for something to whine at. D3 S5 against av 10. 1 in six that you get this terain, and you can avoid it by scouting and going round the thing.

I know you like to play a certain way, and a specialised army is good against the things it is specialised for. Just don't expect it to do well in an all comers list.
Alternatively keep half your list and add in a few things to counter your greatest threat. Look for solutions, not things to whine about.

Spiney Norman
03-07-2012, 14:07
Ok with the rules on Fliers bikes and jetbikes I suspect that we will see more than gunlines.
Dreds vs Grenades.
1.) they only get one attack.
2.) They need to be WS5 to hit on a 3+
3.) Krak are Str6 so thats a 6 to drop a HP
4.) Melta Str8, ok these can hurt, but they should. Even then they are a.) rare, and b) Not as good as a bog standard Terminator Squad.

Assuming Krak, A unit of 10 will hit 5 and that 0.83 Hps, thats hardly through the floor.
Seriously this is what should happen when you throw a block of steel into a unit of infantry. Dead infantry, but with a few dents in return.

Ok, now run the same thing with DE Wyches using Haywire grenades instead of Krak, 5 hit = 4.2 glancing/penning hits = no hull points, = dead dread, and by the way that all happens at Int 6 so the mighty dread wont even get to strike.


The whole problem with your response is its filled with whine and hyperbole.
"Landraider as survivable as a Guards man" yeah yeah:rolleyes:

No, a land raider is as survivable as a T6, 4W model with no save, would you pay 250pts for that???

For the record I think the Hull points system is fairly sound if only they had given higher end vehicles more HP. Land Raiders should have at least twice as many as a Rhino, not 1 more. As a rough guide I would experiment with 2 HP for a A10 vehicle, and 1 more per point of armour on the forward facing, so a landraider/russ would have 6, a pred would have 5. As a balancing factor I would give all flyers 2 because theyre so damn hard to hit anyway.

Rhinos and chimeras are still great in this edition, mechanised infantry armies are not going anywhere, in the case of a Rhino you're more likely to pen and explode it than you are to strip all its HP away, so its mostly a wash, but at the other end Hull points provide a very easy way to quickly destroy heavily armoured vehicles by largely ignoring their armour value, and that is the problem with it.

mughi3
03-07-2012, 14:24
"Forests-carnivorous forests do S5 hits against REAR armor, so yeah my AV13 is great if it hit me in the front or the sides. :P" Seriously are you thumbing through the book for something to whine at. D3 S5 against av 10. 1 in six that you get this terain, and you can avoid it by scouting and going round the thing.
Uh.....:rolleyes:
This actually happened IN GAME. i walked 2 ironclads into the forest hoping to get some cover saves so i could get close to my enemy, since i am pretty well boned without cover. i rolled random mysterious terrain-got carniverous forest. got 3 back hits on both dreads, one did 2 glances the other did 3. one dead ironclad and one nearly dead, finished off in my opponants turn with another glance after i failed my cover save....and i LIKE the mysterious terrain and objective rules.


I know you like to play a certain way, and a specialised army is good against the things it is specialised for. Just don't expect it to do well in an all comers list.
Except that it was good against any kind of list because it was split half CC and half shooty. i always try to use lists that can deal with a bit of everything.


No, a land raider is as survivable as a T6, 4W model with no save, would you pay 250pts for that???
or 300+, i use expensive landraiders :p

Aluinn
03-07-2012, 14:31
No, a land raider is as survivable as a T6, 4W model with no save, would you pay 250pts for that???

For the record I think the Hull points system is fairly sound if only they had given higher end vehicles more HP. Land Raiders should have at least twice as many as a Rhino, not 1 more. As a rough guide I would experiment with 2 HP for a A10 vehicle, and 1 more per point of armour on the forward facing, so a landraider/russ would have 6, a pred would have 5. As a balancing factor I would give all flyers 2 because theyre so damn hard to hit anyway.


Actually they're more like about as tough as a T10 model with 3 wounds and no save (but that isn't too huge to get a cover save anymore) but a one-turn-use Shrouded save.

Granted, that's still a LOT more fragile than before, but S9, which is the best that many armies can get, still needs a 5+ to "wound" them, S10 a 4+ etc., so saying they're comparable to T6, which would be wounded by S8 on a 2+ rather than the 6+ it'd require to glance a Land Raider, is excessive. You can start somewhat arbitrarily reducing that based on the possibility that some such hits may destroy the thing with a penetration, but then again that requires a yet higher roll and then yet another high roll after that successively, so that makes for an inappropriate comparison. I think it's more accurate to reduce your estimation by a "wound" to account for the fact that after 3 hull points are lost they're kind of likely to have taken some pens (though then again, not that likely, unless people keep on rolling with mass meltaguns, which I very much doubt that they will do).

Now I don't know if a T10, 3-wound model with no armor save but a turn of a its own 5+ cover with 3-4 heavy weapons that can transport dudes in its belly and moves up to 18" is worth the points or not; all I can say is that you're right that it's worse but it is not actually as fragile as a de-carapaced (naked?) Carnifex. In fact I think AV14 vehicles are the most likely to remain fairly useful to have unless you're playing against Necrons, though the Land Raider, as an assault transport that kind of has to get close to the enemy, has always been a unique case. I think HP hurt lighter vehicles a lot more simply by bringing a lot more weapons into the range of what has a decent chance to contribute to destroying them, e.g. multi-shot S6 weapons are now pretty decent anti-vehicle in general but still will not do anything to a Land Raider.

But how survivable vehicles are in a vacuum is a strange thing to consider, because really it is meaningless, at least for those with good armor, until you also factor in how much anti-tank your average opponent will bring, which depends now upon a meta that doesn't even exist but is in a formative stage. Once things settle vehicles may look better, as more people start bringing more weapons dedicated to dealing with massed infantry like flamers and heavy bolters. To be clear I agree they were nerfed heavily, but playing them with 6th Ed. rules against 5th Ed. armies (or someone's first stab at a 6th Ed. army, which is likely to be heavily influenced by what they would have taken in 5th) distorts things.

(Consider for example: By the time everyone is done re-tooling for 6th, I predict that almost every single meltagun you see today will have gone 'poof' and been replaced by a plasma gun or even a flamer, neither of which threaten AV14--and plasma is only a very minor threat to AV13 as well.)

mughi3
03-07-2012, 14:45
Furthermore IA lists aren't "official" from the standpoint of the studio and they just aren't going to balance around them, period. They balance around what they themselves produce; Forge World has entirely different rules people (who often frankly fail pretty hard, IMO, cf current Fantasy Chaos Dwarfs). You're certainly free to use them as long as opponents don't object or the TO approves it or whatever, but being shocked when GW-proper rules changes invalidate them or nerf them to oblivion doesn't seem reasonable.

They may not be the core they balance them around but they are indeed official. GW wants you to buy their product rather it comes from one division or another of the company. the FW office is litterally across the hall from the rules developers and yes they do run things by them, it was asked long ago why they didnt have a double plasma cannon mortis dread and they said they ran that idea past the GW rules dev team at it was shot down.

I cannot speak for fantasy armies sincei do not play them, but my experience is just the opposite FW designers get it right alot more often than the GW main line does IMHO when it comes to testing and rules writing.

Spiney Norman
03-07-2012, 14:51
Actually they're more like about as tough as a T10 model with 3 wounds and no save (but that isn't too huge to get a cover save anymore) but a one-turn-use Shrouded save.

Granted, that's still a LOT more fragile than before, but S9, which is the best that many armies can get, still needs a 5+ to "wound" them, S10 a 4+ etc., so saying they're comparable to T6, which would be wounded by S8 on a 2+ rather than the 6+ it'd require to glance a Land Raider, is excessive. You can start somewhat arbitrarily reducing that based on the possibility that some such hits may destroy the thing with a penetration, but then again that requires a yet higher roll and then yet another high roll after that successively, so that makes for an inappropriate comparison. I think it's more accurate to reduce your estimation by a "wound" to account for the fact that after 3 hull points are lost they're kind of likely to have taken some pens (though then again, not that likely, unless people keep on rolling with mass meltaguns, which I very much doubt that they will do).


???

Shooting gauss flayers at a land raider, you hit on a 3+, you glance (i.e 'wound') on a 6, you need 4 glances to kill the raider, where the hell did T10 come from???
If you get the first turn your LR will get you 12" closer to the enemy, if your opponent goes first it will get you no-where. If anyone thinks their land raider's 4 miserable hull points are going to last more than a turn they are kidding themselves.

BooTMGSG
03-07-2012, 14:58
Ok, now run the same thing with DE Wyches using Haywire grenades instead of Krak, 5 hit = 4.2 glancing/penning hits = no hull points, = dead dread, and by the way that all happens at Int 6 so the mighty dread wont even get to strike.

Well yeah Haywire is different. However, 1.) These are rare grenades and 2.) would you walk your dred up to some fire dragons and moon them?



No, a land raider is as survivable as a T6, 4W model with no save, would you pay 250pts for that???

Hmm Ctan is around 250 pimped up, though is admidly T7.
However,
Poison Weapons can wound it, and not a land raider.
Str 5 weapons can wound it, and not a landraider.
Str 6 weapons can wound it, and not a land raider.
Str 7 weapons can wound it, and not a land raider.
Str 8 weapons wound on 3s, (ok save of 4++ so is the same as wounding on 5s) Landraider is glanced on a 6.
Str 9 weapons wound on 2s, Land raider is glanced on 5, penned on 6
Str 10 Weapons wound on 2s, Land raiders is glanced on 4, penned on 5-6.

The point is that they are still tough. There are still a lot of small arms that can't touch them. Keeping your distance and neutralising local threats is the way to go. (That and cry when you see Necrons).

Hulkster
03-07-2012, 15:01
They will against most armies that are not Necrons though. Necrons are a bit too god against vehicles in my opinion, but thats them. Everything else is very similar as it was before.

Aluinn
03-07-2012, 15:02
They may not be the core they balance them around but they are indeed official. GW wants you to buy their product rather it comes from one division or another of the company. the FW office is litterally across the hall from the rules developers and yes they do run things by them, it was asked long ago why they didnt have a double plasma cannon mortis dread and they said they ran that idea past the GW rules dev team at it was shot down.

I cannot speak for fantasy armies sincei do not play them, but my experience is just the opposite FW designers get it right alot more often than the GW main line does IMHO when it comes to testing and rules writing.

I'm sure you're right that GW wants you to buy Forge World things, but the rules designers are not the marketing department, contrary to popular belief, and even then they are still two companies even with one being a subsidiary of the other--GW marketing doesn't even plug Forge World all that often, and really didn't at all until relatively recently.

I think if you want their opinion on how "official" those rules should be that all you have to do (in the absence of an opportunity to ask them and get a straight answer :)) is look at what they allow you to take to the tournaments they run. Doing that indicates that they really don't consider FW rules to be balanced enough for competitive or perhaps even general use, i.e. that they oughtn't be considered "official", "standard" or "core" or however you want to put it.

I admit it's difficult to come to a conclusion on the subject because GW refuses for some reason to just outright tell us that FW are "opponent's permission required" rules or not, but I don't think there's a lot of evidence that, if forced to answer honestly, they'd endorse such rules as being equivalent to actual GW products. I've had this discussion many a time and I often hear the opinion that since they don't say anything on the matter definitively we should take that as an endorsement to use FW rules freely in all situations, but that seems like an illogical conclusion to me: Absence of prohibition is not endorsement, nor any sort of approval at all.

I'll take your word that the rules people at both companies talk to each other (it doesn't seem surprising), but that doesn't seem to me to mean much in terms of our use of FW rules as players either, other than that some of them might maybe have been tacitly approved or at least not nixed by GW, but we can't know exactly which.

Pyriel
03-07-2012, 15:04
... OK, i give up the moment people start saying "i just go to tourneys to see cool lists and meet people".

this is a TOTALY legit way to play the game. but its a FRIENDLY way to play the game. sure, nerfed lists are not competitive. guess what-they were NEVER competitive in the first place. know when you are competitive? when you go and *attempt to win the tourney*. even if your codex sucks, you SHOULD at least run one of its more powerful builds.

if a Tyranid complains (i'll talk for 5th ed, cause the 6th-ed meta isnt settled) why his army sucks when he brings 6 x hive guard, 1 x hive tyrant & guards, 2 'fexes, and some genestealers, then SORRY, but thats not a competitive army; competition is just NOT about "bringing whatever models you like".

look,lets say I'm in MMA. i love striking(kicking/punching), but if i dont train grappling, and train extensively, I'm SCREWED, competitively. this is the reality, so i frickin' adapt and train grappling too.

same with a gaming tourney: if a tyranid wants to be competitive, he should bring his bets list: 9 x hive guard, 3 x tervigons, etc. if a Black Templar, like myself, brings a Black Tide close combat list, or even a semi-close combat list, with our current codex, in 5th, he is SCREWED, no chance to win the tourney. but if he brings 3 x typhoons, 3 x predators, and 2 x dual-cyclone tankhunter termies, producing 14 missile shots, 6 lascannon shots, and 6 autocannon shots, per turn, plus tons of the other support (what i listed is just 1115 points; 800+ pts leftover!)THEN he is competitive.

then he can go complaining if the rules etc are balanced, since he plays this game to win (and proves he plays this game to win by doing his best). but i cant hear "omg, my army of random models that i like the look of isnt powerful". you shouldnt expect it to be. in all games, being competitive is about being hardcore, and you're NOT.

keep playing the game in your, friendly, game in FLGS, its totaly legit.excellent, a great way to play the game, and SOMETIMES i like these games too, finaly able to bring whatever i like(not much time for friendly games these days though :( ). but PLEASE let us have our competitive environment(=tournaments) we have rights too!

BooTMGSG
03-07-2012, 15:08
Uh.....:rolleyes:
This actually happened IN GAME. i walked 2 ironclads into the forest hoping to get some cover saves so i could get close to my enemy, since i am pretty well boned without cover. i rolled random mysterious terrain-got carniverous forest. got 3 back hits on both dreads, one did 2 glances the other did 3. one dead ironclad and one nearly dead, finished off in my opponants turn with another glance after i failed my cover save....and i LIKE the mysterious terrain and objective rules.

That is some bad luck. However, I'm suprised you sent in the second Dred after what happened to the first.

drear
03-07-2012, 15:09
no idea where this thread went after the first two pages, and im not about to read through page after page of hullpoint hate..

playing a few games of 6th ive found it a really elegant system. anti tank weapons become actually anti tank weapons, so theres a reason to take a lascannon over a melta etc

also tanks are improved in the fact that i cant just fire each anti tank gun in turn at a seperate tank in order to roll up a cannot move/shoot result and then mop up whatever infantry is remaining out of cover.

necrons got mean with the hull points inclusion though

Aluinn
03-07-2012, 15:10
???

Shooting gauss flayers at a land raider, you hit on a 3+, you glance (i.e 'wound') on a 6, you need 4 glances to kill the raider, where the hell did T10 come from???

It came from a comparison of the rolls required to wound a given Toughness value and the rolls required to glance or penetrate, and thus take a hull point off of, an AV14 vehicle. If you do this you'll see that, if we must equate Toughness and armor values, then T10=AV14 (S8 wounds/glances on 6, S9 on 5+, S10 on 4+). However, it's not a totally apt comparison both because of the issue of the vehicle damage chart (though not rolled on in the event of a glance any longer) and also because S7 could wound T10 but cannot glance AV14.

Gauss wounds anything on a 6 and glances anything on a 6; it is meaningless for the purpose of comparing anything to anything else because its effect is the same against any target (that is, the special effect of the rule itself; obviously the weapons have different profiles but against either AV14 or T7+ with no save, or an invuln/cover save, they don't matter--except the Heavy Destroyer weapon, but that gains literally nothing from being Gauss because it has lascannon stats).

Grocklock
03-07-2012, 15:20
I like the new hull points and im sorry to hear that there are pople out there that think it is a failing on GW part.
Yes glancing a vehicle to death is new but I have not seen to be that common, yes necrons are good at it but each army has there own tricks.

in the dreadnought example that too me sounds really fun from a story perspective, the idea that the the vehicle was dragged down by the wood, and this was capatalissed by the opponent.

as for the comments by pyriel all I have too say is that GW always has and will always be a game not ment for competative play they make no bones about it and flicking though the rule book each page or couple of pages talks about the narrative as it is the driving force behind the game not the competative nature of the game.

Pyriel
03-07-2012, 15:25
Grocklock, i respect your point of view and the fact that you use logical arguments. Bravo (this is not ironic).
HOWEVER i dont think there is a "right" and "wrong" way to play a game. this is why i think everything has its time and place-friendly games AND lists for fun games, and hardcore competitiveness in tournaments.

Hull points are an excellent mechanic- a step forward.

so it might hurt some armies in the competitive scene-big deal. people should adapt.

and if it hurts friendly games too, no problem-they're friendly games, just agree on what types of lists/missions you'll play, or if you cant find a way to take out the necrons, then agree on them having a points handicap. its a friendly game.

is what i am saying so weird?

BramGaunt
03-07-2012, 15:44
Ok let me hit this point by point
a glancing hit does minimal damage i counter that it should not take 4 paint scratches to kill a 300 point model without actually having to work at it.
the point of armored vehicles is to make them more survivable, as it stands now a guardsman has a better survival rate in 6th ed than a land raider.



How do you come up with this?

Where do you take from that glancing hits do minimal damage? They just don't do any serious damage. A glancing hit can range from a scratch to a fracture in plating to torn of armour plates, which leave the vehicle open for other attacks. Framing could be bent, plates dislocated, etc. The crew is unaffected (or even unaware) of this damage, as the vehicle responds normally. just imagine a coconut, same principle as a tank. Strong shell to protect it. Now, you can burst it open with one precise strike of a hammer, but if you don't hit it accuratly, you'll probably end up not opening it. Sooner or later it will break open though.

Also, where are vehicles expensive? For 150 Points I get either a Leman Russ Battletank or 10 Space Marines with basic gear. Tell me who is capable of taking and dealing more damage. For 200 Points I get 10 'naked' Terminators, or a Monolith. Again, who can take and deal more damage?

Flyers are by far not as strong as you suggest, since their armour is pretty poor and there are plenty of ways to deal with them. Also, if you complain about the sheer ammount of glancing hits a Necron Army deals... well, that's the army concept. Necrons can by far dish out more glancing hits then ANY other army. Remember 4th Edition when Necron Warriors were actually able to one-shot Land Raiders? And how the whole amry suddenly couldn't deal with vehicles at all?

Mechanized Armies were to strong in 5th. GW dealt with the problem perfectly.

TomsDad
03-07-2012, 16:09
???

Shooting gauss flayers at a land raider, you hit on a 3+, you glance (i.e 'wound') on a 6, you need 4 glances to kill the raider, where the hell did T10 come from???
If you get the first turn your LR will get you 12" closer to the enemy, if your opponent goes first it will get you no-where. If anyone thinks their land raider's 4 miserable hull points are going to last more than a turn they are kidding themselves.

The earlier comparison to T6 would work if every single weapon that ever fires at your LR had Gauss, now assuming you not single handedly holding back the newly awakened necron empire can we stop taking a specific special rule designed to emulate one races fantastic ability to destroy armour as a baseline.

LR are T10 because a S10 hit will take a wound of them on 4+. if LRs were really T6 then bolters would be taking a HP on a 6+, are bolters taking a HP off you every time they roll a 6 to penetrate?

A las-cannon hitting a normal LR has a 33% of taking a HP so you'll need 12 hits to take out a LR that way, each hit also has a 6% chance to take it in one go with a penetrating shot (your more likely to chip the HPs down than get that result).

So who are you fighting that can get that much fire power on each of your LRs on turn one?

Zothos
03-07-2012, 16:49
Mechanized Armies were to strong in 5th. GW dealt with the problem perfectly.

Get out of my mind...

Arandmoor
03-07-2012, 17:30
So what do people without melta bombs do? (ie. every non imperial codex) - Even Necron Gauss weaponry is completely ineffective against buildings, the only way to stop a fortress of redemption is too blow it apart at range. Buildings are now very very very resiliant and in the fortresses case pack more firepower than most tanks and have AA guns for a very low price. Expect to see a fortress replacing that tank parking lot soon! Anyone would think GW wanted to sell them.....

I would argue with the lack of skill argument, yes there are going to be "tricks" to using vehicles in 6th, which people will pick up on - this may even make them more effective (Although so far the main arument for HP's seems to be that tanks can fire effectively for the 1-3 turns they are on the table) - If you spend the game hiding tanks from LOS they are no longer going to be firing effectively, if they cant be seen they cant see. A 35point Rhino might still get used, I certainly wont be using a 80 - 100 point devilfish anymore, I cant claim/contest objectives with it, I dont want to use it transport ability to get close to the enemy and its about as survivable a blind 3 legged elephant walking across a minefield.

What do necrons do?

Death ray.
Warscythe.
Doom cannon.

Also, new codicies will, IMO, definetly be bringing down the cost of some of the more expensive transport-only vehicles. Devilfish in particular, and maybe a minor discount to the Wave Serpent's base cost.

Necronartum
03-07-2012, 17:37
Necron's, whilst being the 'King's of Glancing' are the 'Pauper's of Penetration' (no explicit pun intended). They, in my humble opinion, have weak, overpriced anti-armour choices compared to many of the other armies that can be fielded. Most basic troops in alternative armies can select options to find a way to destroy vehicles, albiet it in assault or short range firepower.

ihavetoomuchminis
03-07-2012, 17:38
People saying vehicles are doomed seem to be forgetting that now they only need to have one side 25% obscured to have a cover save. Even infantry models can give cover to some vehicles.

Arandmoor
03-07-2012, 17:42
Yes, we get it, Necrons will own vehicles in this edition. You don't need to repeat it every 2 posts in this thread.

This doesn't mean the hull mechanic is wrong, but maybe that the gauss one is not well balanced in this new edition rules.

Vehicles being destroyed in combat by a 10 man unit with grenades designed to destroy vehicles don't seem a fail of the sistem to me...

Gauss is there to cope with not getting in-squad AV/heavy weapons. People seem to forget that Gauss on big blocks of warriors always bad news for vehicle armies before 5th edition (where they just got dismantled by the edition). Anti-Vehical Fire: It's what Necrons do.

On the flip side, Necrons are still quite terrible in CC almost universally. The difference now is that instead of being competitive but at a disadvantage (4th ed), or flat-out dismantled to the point that it was either go cheese or go home (5th ed), we're just straight up competitive in 6th.

We have more than just Gauss for guns so it's nowhere near as universal as it was, warriors only have a 4+ save, and WBB isn't as potent as it used to be.

Gauss is fine.

Zabousta
03-07-2012, 17:51
I play Necron and Tau, and my buddy plays IG. He is almost to the point of refusing to play my Necrons before I even have a chance to try them in 6th.

Yeah Gauss will be the bane of many mechanized army lists. Well hey, its something they are good at. After all each army has its strengths. In the end it "should" balance out.

Yes you can glance a vehicle to death, BUT its easier to give your vehicle a cover save, since you only need 25% cover. PLUS you can't be stun locked anymore. Meaning full range of power with a tank until it gets penetrated. To me thats a fair trade off. Add the fact that 5th ed was the edition of vehicles, its nice to see that GW is scaling them back a tiny bit. If I wanted to only field tanks, I'd go play World of Tanks :P

On the flip side. Disruption Pods seem to still give the good old 4+ save on Tau vehicles. So thats nice. No need to cower behind units/terrain to survive.

I'll know better after a few games, but both my armies seem to have a positive transition into 6th.

Regardless, the direction 6th is going seems great, and I'll reserve judgement until I give it a fair go.

Bonzai
03-07-2012, 17:51
And how much was due to you taking necrons, which pretty much everyone has acknowledged are too powerful at killing vehicles now? Seriously, try and think how much damage you would have done without the gauss rule in effect.

The answer is...... Exactly the same. None of the vehicles were killed by the Gauss rule. 4 Lance teks with chronotek re-roll, 2 Heat Rays, 9 Hvy Destroyers, and 3 anhilliation barges pretty much took care of things out right. Oh... and Zahndrehk giving tank hunter here and there for good measure.


This. A list super optimized for killing lots of vehicles should, you know, kill lots of vehicles.

The purpose of hull points is to make it so that you won't ALWAYS be facing lots of vehicles.

Understood. However, if EVERY vehicle that is in range dies immediately, then that is a shift too far in the opposite direction. It also has the unintended side effect of making the units inside easier to kill. No more wrecks to block line of sight, and the crater from the explosion now gives a 5+ cover save instead of a 4+. Not only did I pop 4 rhinos first turn, but I killed a CSM squad, a 1k Son squad, and all but 2 from another CSM squad in one round of shooting. That was something I wasn't prepared for. It's all well in good to shake up the meta game now and then, but if we go from mech spam right into the edition of flyers/ jump infantry hordes, is it really that much better?

Don't get me wrong. There are a lot of things I like in this edition, but it is by no means perfect.

murgel2006
03-07-2012, 17:59
... but my experience is just the opposite FW designers get it right alot more often than the GW main line does IMHO when it comes to testing and rules writing.

I have no better words. However I'm under the impression as well, that FW are much more creative in making the game and the special rules more interesting and more FUN to play.



Also, new codicies will, IMO, definetly be bringing down the cost of some of the more expensive transport-only vehicles. Devilfish in particular, and maybe a minor discount to the Wave Serpent's base cost.

YOU SHALL NOT JINX IT! :eek:
A" minor discount"?? what are you? an Eldar hater? One of those "Eldar are OPcheesytrickery...":cries:
No, bring it to it's real worth. I say 60 Points with basic guns. And not a single point more.:angel:

murgel2006
03-07-2012, 17:59
ups - double.

yabbadabba
03-07-2012, 18:09
Some of us LIKE certain play styles. i like small elite themed mechanised lists ( i wrote up a full fluff section for my chapter and why it uses the units it does) that are resiliant. aside from my nids all my armies have been mechanised. now i have an army i really like to play for the last couple of editions that usually did pretty well at surviving and dishing out damage that is effectively slaughtered via hull points if i put it on the table in 6th. Ah, an excuse and stubborness. Thank you

Spiney Norman
03-07-2012, 18:19
The earlier comparison to T6 would work if every single weapon that ever fires at your LR had Gauss, now assuming you not single handedly holding back the newly awakened necron empire can we stop taking a specific special rule designed to emulate one races fantastic ability to destroy armour as a baseline.

LR are T10 because a S10 hit will take a wound of them on 4+. if LRs were really T6 then bolters would be taking a HP on a 6+, are bolters taking a HP off you every time they roll a 6 to penetrate?

A las-cannon hitting a normal LR has a 33% of taking a HP so you'll need 12 hits to take out a LR that way, each hit also has a 6% chance to take it in one go with a penetrating shot (your more likely to chip the HPs down than get that result).

So who are you fighting that can get that much fire power on each of your LRs on turn one?

I'm fighting two land raiders and stripping their hull points in a single turn, then I'm using my gauss guns to mow down the terminators that come out of them. I don't even own a land raider and I'm shocked how bad they've become.

Zabousta
03-07-2012, 18:31
So is the argument that everyone took tanks since they were good? If they aren't good now, and there is a better choice, wouldn't you be taking that instead?

Lets face it, people take the best units to win. Units that are sub-par, get left behind.

Even if you want to field a certain themed list for a certain play style then you run the risk of having a sub-par army. That s your choice.

If tanks aren't so good in 6th, then don't field tanks......

They were great in 5th, that's why everyone took them.

My suggestion is jump infantry...

Battleworthy Arts
03-07-2012, 18:38
How do you come up with this?

Where do you take from that glancing hits do minimal damage? They just don't do any serious damage. A glancing hit can range from a scratch to a fracture in plating to torn of armour plates, which leave the vehicle open for other attacks. Framing could be bent, plates dislocated, etc. The crew is unaffected (or even unaware) of this damage, as the vehicle responds normally. just imagine a coconut, same principle as a tank. Strong shell to protect it. Now, you can burst it open with one precise strike of a hammer, but if you don't hit it accuratly, you'll probably end up not opening it. Sooner or later it will break open though.

Also, where are vehicles expensive? For 150 Points I get either a Leman Russ Battletank or 10 Space Marines with basic gear. Tell me who is capable of taking and dealing more damage. For 200 Points I get 10 'naked' Terminators, or a Monolith. Again, who can take and deal more damage?

Flyers are by far not as strong as you suggest, since their armour is pretty poor and there are plenty of ways to deal with them. Also, if you complain about the sheer ammount of glancing hits a Necron Army deals... well, that's the army concept. Necrons can by far dish out more glancing hits then ANY other army. Remember 4th Edition when Necron Warriors were actually able to one-shot Land Raiders? And how the whole amry suddenly couldn't deal with vehicles at all?

Mechanized Armies were to strong in 5th. GW dealt with the problem perfectly.

I think I have a mancrush on you.

Arandmoor
03-07-2012, 18:50
So is the argument that everyone took tanks since they were good? If they aren't good now, and there is a better choice, wouldn't you be taking that instead?

Lets face it, people take the best units to win. Units that are sub-par, get left behind.

Even if you want to field a certain themed list for a certain play style then you run the risk of having a sub-par army. That s your choice.

If tanks aren't so good in 6th, then don't field tanks......

They were great in 5th, that's why everyone took them.

My suggestion is jump infantry...

Tanks will still be worth fielding. You just can't field them to the exclusion of infantry any more.

Vehicles are supposed to be used to support an army. Things are more like 3rd and 4th edition again where vehicles are concerned.

My hope is that a balanced army will be the best army to field.

I think Blood Angels just got a huge buff though because of their ability to take JI as troops.

HAMMER OF WRATH ALL THE ENEMIES! (http://qkme.me/3pyg4k)

Pendragon
03-07-2012, 20:04
Uh.....:rolleyes:
This actually happened IN GAME. i walked 2 ironclads into the forest hoping to get some cover saves so i could get close to my enemy, since i am pretty well boned without cover. i rolled random mysterious terrain-got carniverous forest. got 3 back hits on both dreads, one did 2 glances the other did 3. one dead ironclad and one nearly dead, finished off in my opponants turn with another glance after i failed my cover save....and i LIKE the mysterious terrain and objective rules.

So your beef with 6ed is that it gives you horribly bad luck with dice?

Gonefishing
03-07-2012, 20:13
Yes glancing a vehicle to death is new but I have not seen to be that common

Thats part of the problem - its not new, but now its easy. One of my favourite tricks in 5th was OF'ing a Kroot Squad and taking out backline vehicles that had not moved (Or moved minimally). 60 auto hits normally resulted in 10 glances and a dead vehicle by weight of attrition, even if I did not kill it I imobilised it and got to attack it again in my opponents turn. - That was 5th Glancing to death.

Now I cant OF my Kroot and assualt anymore (In fact the poor Kroot have been totally nerfed by 6th but thats another story), but If a vehicle (with rear AV10) ends up anywhere within 18" of a unit (no matter how far its moved) if I can get into assault - it going to die. 60 attacks is 40 hits and 6/7 Glances - more than enough to take down any vehicle (or 2 if you hit a squadron). Glancing to death is the new black, Tau fire warriors can even take down a Landraider in CC with EMP grenades I just need a 4+ to glance - You know your in trouble when Tau Fire Warriors can take you down in CC.

I dont mind the new Hull Point system, I agree that GW needed to nerf vehicles to stop the car parks of doom, I admit to being slightly cynical about the commercial aspects when you look at the general unkillability of the hugely expensive scenery (fortress of redemption) they are trying to push (Anyone that used to play the Carpark Army will just buy one of these now and fill it with troops and laugh at you as your weapons fire bounces off it). I just think that they nerfed to far.

Personally I don't give a crap - I have no axe to grind here - Ill take Battlesuits instead (They have been nerfed too but not as badly as vehicles), vehicles have never been a huge part of my lists (I will miss my Piranha's though). But, from the point of view of someone with no axe to grind, who never had a moments trouble playing against Mech lists in 5th (they were the best match up for Tau and virtually a 100% guaruntee of winning now). I think the new Hull Points system is too weak. A Landraider should have more than 4 Wounds, a Leman Russ Should have more than 4 Wounds, Even a Rhino should have more than 3 Wounds! As they are Heavy/Expensive vehicles may as well stay in the case (or be replaced by cheaper, better, 10 x harder to kill Fortresses of redemption). Crap cheap vehicles will survive as transports, but only to move troops as far forward as possible before they die.

I doubt the "Win at all coster" cheesefest Tourney types you all seem to hate are posting on this thread at the moment to be honest with you, they will already have moved on and be buying new armies of Bikes/Jump Troops/Fortresses of redemption and Necrons. Thats what the dedicated Tourney players do, they dump what doesent work and they move on to a new army. Thats why after Greyknights came out 50% of the Tourney Field were Greyknights players, they did not all just appear by magic - they recognised the best army for the Meta and went out and brought it. The only army now that will really be considering a full Tourney Mech list are Guard players, who can trundle out a shed load of flyers and Leman Russ squadrons.

Hull points have changed the Meta, I think they have changed it too much personally - A gentle nerf would have produced the balanced armies you all claim to all want to play against, as it is now the nerf will have moved people enmasse to a entirely different flavour of cheese (which incidently conincides with the shiny new models GW want to sell).

The cheddar has not gone, its just moved from the tracked variety to screaming fast moving fromage from the skies.

Grocklock
03-07-2012, 21:18
Thats part of the problem - its not new, but now its easy. One of my favourite tricks in 5th was OF'ing a Kroot Squad and taking out backline vehicles that had not moved (Or moved minimally). 60 auto hits normally resulted in 10 glances and a dead vehicle by weight of attrition, even if I did not kill it I imobilised it and got to attack it again in my opponents turn. - That was 5th Glancing to death.


Now I cant OF my Kroot and assualt anymore (In fact the poor Kroot have been totally nerfed by 6th but thats another story), but If a vehicle (with rear AV10) ends up anywhere within 18" of a unit (no matter how far its moved) if I can get into assault - it going to die. 60 attacks is 40 hits and 6/7 Glances - more than enough to take down any vehicle (or 2 if you hit a squadron). Glancing to death is the new black, Tau fire warriors can even take down a Landraider in CC with EMP grenades I just need a 4+ to glance - You know your in trouble when Tau Fire Warriors can take you down in CC.

The way I see it now is that it works more like an army where as before a tank could pritty much run off and it was going to get on ok now you need the infantry to support it and portect it much like in real warfare. If you kroot are getting to my lines or even your fire warriors then I have made a grave error.

xxRavenxx
03-07-2012, 21:37
I like that necrons in this edition will be in range of, and destroy, all of your leman russ with their 24" single shot guns, on turn 1. They'd be lucky to be in range of a single battletank if you've deployed properly. (Touching the back of the table). If you're using transports, then get ready for a shocking revelation: Transports are to help you move forward with added safety, not be a rolling battle bunker.

Aluinn
03-07-2012, 21:41
I dont mind the new Hull Point system, I agree that GW needed to nerf vehicles to stop the car parks of doom, I admit to being slightly cynical about the commercial aspects when you look at the general unkillability of the hugely expensive scenery (fortress of redemption) they are trying to push (Anyone that used to play the Carpark Army will just buy one of these now and fill it with troops and laugh at you as your weapons fire bounces off it). I just think that they nerfed to far.

Personally I don't give a crap - I have no axe to grind here - Ill take Battlesuits instead (They have been nerfed too but not as badly as vehicles), vehicles have never been a huge part of my lists (I will miss my Piranha's though). But, from the point of view of someone with no axe to grind, who never had a moments trouble playing against Mech lists in 5th (they were the best match up for Tau and virtually a 100% guaruntee of winning now). I think the new Hull Points system is too weak. A Landraider should have more than 4 Wounds, a Leman Russ Should have more than 4 Wounds, Even a Rhino should have more than 3 Wounds! As they are Heavy/Expensive vehicles may as well stay in the case (or be replaced by cheaper, better, 10 x harder to kill Fortresses of redemption). Crap cheap vehicles will survive as transports, but only to move troops as far forward as possible before they die.

I doubt the "Win at all coster" cheesefest Tourney types you all seem to hate are posting on this thread at the moment to be honest with you, they will already have moved on and be buying new armies of Bikes/Jump Troops/Fortresses of redemption and Necrons.

Hull points have changed the Meta, I think they have changed it too much personally - A gentle nerf would have produced the balanced armies you all claim to all want to play against, as it is now the nerf will have moved people enmasse to a entirely different flavour of cheese (which incidently conincides with the shiny new models GW want to sell).

The cheddar has not gone, its just moved from the tracked variety to screaming fast moving fromage from the skies.

Bolded by myself for emphasis and "uuuh wut?"-inducingness.

The Fortress of Redemption is a blatantly terrible choice in competitive terms compared to the Bastion, which costs less money than most vehicles--they have the same armor and follow the same rules that make them really hard to destroy, and the Bastion gets a better anti-aircraft option for fewer total points. Furthermore, you can only have one of these things in your army, and furthermore a lot of people will plainly scratchbuild them to match their xenos or Chaos armies--I daresay the book seems to kind of encourage it. If GW were attempting to cynically pimp their models by manipulating rules, they would have made the Fortress much better, allowed you to have 3 or more and made the rules more specific to the kits themselves rather than saying things like the access points are "as per model" and that the Bastion's heavy bolters can be mounted with one facing each direction. I'm sure they thought it would encourage more people to buy terrain from them and that this was a plus, but they clearly did not design the specifics of the rules purely or even primarily to sell kits.

This is to say, you have to distinguish between the general concept that GW makes models and rules in order to sell models, which is true, if obvious, and that they specifically overpower or underpower things or buff and nerf them at strategic times just to get you to buy the "new hotness", which really does not appear to be true if you make any attempt to look their rules objectively and not cherry-pick examples--if this was the case, how do you explain Pyrovores? How about Tervigons not having a model ... for years ... when the rules were so good? How about Thunderwolf Cav, or Nob Bikers, or Hydras and Manticores? How about the idea that they might have just screwed up and overnerfed Carnifexes because they were obviously way too powerful before?

Now GW does cynically pimp their models, I admit, but they do it from their marketing department, with a monthly catalogue called White Dwarf, by plastering photos of their minis all over everything else for good measure, and by just releasing a lot more new crud (almost all of which is plastic) than their competitors (many of whom are still stuck using metal) possibly can, with a wide aesthetic variety across 2-3 game systems in a scattershot approach the result of which is that if you're a geeky person, then GW probably makes something that you think is awesome, even if you won't admit it. In other words, they use arcane techniques such as advertising, marketing, licensing, market research, etc. rather than writing bad rules to "make" people buy things, which believe it or not would actually be counterproductive if they really did it.

I know people would rather believe that they're "forced" to buy products as opposed to psychologically and subconsciously manipulated into doing so, but I'm a in a truth- telling mood today, and I'm telling you that what happens in the real world is the latter, because it's far more effective and people either don't notice it, or tend to deny to themselves as well as others that it works on them.

I didn't get around to fliers but let's just say that we can check back on your opinion about them being OP in a few months and judge its worth then. I doubt it will hold up, though it may, but the point is really that it's way too early for anything that isn't extremely obvious and this doesn't seem to be. I personally think they're useful, or perhaps even very good in some cases, but no better than infantry in this edition, and infantry are, well, kind of old hat ... actually, the oldest of hats, and the easiest to substitute with cheaper hats from other hat-makers. 2 HP on a lot of fliers, and low armor, mean that even being hit on 6s they're hardly impervious to harm. An AV10-11 flier in 6th is probably on the whole more fragile than an AV13 vehicle was in 5th Ed, and it's harder to spam them.

(Oh, and there are also the buffs to anything with a 2+ save, jump infantry, psykers, walking monstrous creatures--though pretty minor there--and flying monstrous creatures, all of which have a lot of old models to represent them, to consider here.)

Vaktathi
03-07-2012, 22:06
I like that necrons in this edition will be in range of, and destroy, all of your leman russ with their 24" single shot guns, on turn 1. They'd be lucky to be in range of a single battletank if you've deployed properly. (Touching the back of the table). If you're using transports, then get ready for a shocking revelation: Transports are to help you move forward with added safety, not be a rolling battle bunker.The problem is that half the armies in the game were designed with the intent that their transports would be rolling battle bunkers. Space Marines and Dark Eldar won't have as much of an issue, Eldar, Guard and Tau mechanized armies on the other hand are going to have a very difficult time of it.

A 200pt holofield falcon isn't really doing to be harder to destroy than a 35pt Rhino, and, rather comically, one of the most effective ways to destroy tanks in Warhammer 40,000 is to charge at them with the intent of destroying them through assault (which, if anyone is familiar with their WW2 history, is the same tactic the major powers used to derisively justify Poland's quick demise at supposedly, though not actually, having stupidly tried to charge Panzers with cavalry). A single tac squad is almost assured to destroy any tank in an assault in 6E, 10 attacks with kraks, 6.66 hits, 3.33 glances/pens against rear AV10 (meaning anything but walkers, land raiders and stormravens for the most part).

Rick Blaine
03-07-2012, 22:17
A single tac squad is almost assured to destroy any tank in an assault in 6E, 10 attacks with kraks, 6.66 hits, 3.33 glances/pens against rear AV10 (meaning anything but walkers, land raiders and stormravens for the most part).

It's realistic and encourages actual tactics instead of just rolling up the table unprotected. How terrible.

Vaktathi
03-07-2012, 22:27
It's realistic and encourages actual tactics instead of just rolling up the table unprotected. How terrible.
Effective tank destruction is not typically accomplished by charging ten dudes up and slapping grenades all over it, that's a pretty purely 40k thing there. In real life, that's a desperation tactic used in heavily built up areas typically done with improvised flame weapons or specialized tank hunting details with extremely high casualty counts.

I also fail to see how practically auto-killing 99% of vehicles in the game as soon as you can get into them encourages anything than hiding your tanks in the back and simply making it into base contact with your opponents vehicles.

Tanks weren't exactly hard to hurt in CC before, the same tac squad had about a 50/50 chance to kill a moving tank before, it was only hard if the tank moved full speed and didn't shoot (which, if we're talking realism, actual tanks today can move at highway speeds and hit moving vehicle sized targets 1500m away with a better than 95% accuracy rate in most western armies...)

Gonefishing
03-07-2012, 23:07
Bolded by myself for emphasis and "uuuh wut?"-inducingness.

The Fortress of Redemption is a blatantly terrible choice in competitive terms compared to the Bastion, which costs less money than most vehicles--they have the same armor and follow the same rules that make them really hard to destroy, and the Bastion gets a better anti-aircraft option for fewer total points. Furthermore, you can only have one of these things in your army, and furthermore a lot of people will plainly scratchbuild them to match their xenos or Chaos armies--I daresay the book seems to kind of encourage it. If GW were attempting to cynically pimp their models by manipulating rules, they would have made the Fortress much better, allowed you to have 3 or more and made the rules more specific to the kits themselves rather than saying things like the access points are "as per model" and that the Bastion's heavy bolters can be mounted with one facing each direction. I'm sure they thought it would encourage more people to buy terrain from them and that this was a plus, but they clearly did not design the specifics of the rules purely or even primarily to sell kits.

I didn't get around to fliers but let's just say that we can check back on your opinion about them being OP in a few months and judge its worth then. I doubt it will hold up, though it may, but the point is really that it's way too early for anything that isn't extremely obvious and this doesn't seem to be. I personally think they're useful, or perhaps even very good in some cases, but no better than infantry in this edition, and infantry are, well, kind of old hat ... actually, the oldest of hats, and the easiest to substitute with cheaper hats from other hat-makers. 2 HP on a lot of fliers, and low armor, mean that even being hit on 6s they're hardly impervious to harm. An AV10-11 flier in 6th is probably on the whole more fragile than an AV13 vehicle was in 5th Ed, and it's harder to spam them.

(Oh, and there are also the buffs to anything with a 2+ save, jump infantry, psykers, walking monstrous creatures--though pretty minor there--and flying monstrous creatures, all of which have a lot of old models to represent them, to consider here.)

Cut out the middle part about GW's marketing because I dont necessarily disagree with that, and to be fair we could argue about it all day - while my personal feelings about GW are more cynical (I am the sort of cynicist that sees the adding of allies to the rulebook as a brillaint strategy to sell more codexes and models to people who would normally only buy the things that applied to their specific race) thats not the point I was trying to make.

As for a fortress of redemption, well my view on that one differes from yours - for 220 points you get 4 AV14 Buildings that can only be destroyed with penetrating hits, it has considerable fire power (Including the potential to hit anywhere on the table with a strength 8 Ord Barrage) added to all the troops you can fit inside it (and their fire power), and hide behind it to counter assualt/provide saves etc. If you were the sort of player that previously liked to castle up in a corner with a world of tanks, then this piece of scenery will hit your spot - If Tanks have Hull Points, surely Buildings should have "structure" points? - They dont because they are new and shiny (again thats just my cynical opinion).

What I was actually trying to say however is that I think Hull Points are a faliiure not because of the concept - or the ideal, but because they have made vehicles too weak with the current system.

I have been a Tau player throughout 4th and 5th and have never felt forced to buy any other armies because of GW's marketing, I have also taken Tau to all the tourney's I have been too - not because they are the best army but because I enjoy playing them. The hardcore Tourney players out there also dont feel "Forced" to buy the latest and greatest things - they buy them because they are currently "The best" and they want to do well, they make a choice based on the rules set as it exists at that time (which is the point I was trying to make). When Grey knights came out we went from 0-1 Greyknights army per tourney to 50% of the field being Grey Knights, why? Because rules wise they were super awesome and they gave the player the best chance of winning - so people went out and brought them enmasse and took them to tournies.

Maybe you are correct, in a years time when more Codexes have been drip fed into the market and more fliers have been released alsong with a corresponding amount of AA guns Fliers will no longer be the 6th edition wonderboy, the point is - that now - at this moment in time - they very much are (along with Jump Troops and Flying MC's and Jetbikes etc). Fromage from the skies was not intended just to cover the fying vehicles but the plethora of fast moving hard hitting units and fliers that currently seem (along with Necrons as the first true 6th ed army) to be where the Meta is at - and thats what you are going to see at tourneys. Hull Points have nerfed vehicles, and the hardcore players will have already started putting them on the shelves and buying/converting what works.

Everyone wants to play against more balanced armies and complains about the filthy cheddar merchants, and is celebrating saying that vehicle hullpoints have ended that - well, they havent - all they have done is made vehicles far far too weak, which means, as always, the hardcore crowd will move with the meta, ditch the vehicles and move on. Personally I think if they had wielded the nerf bat a little more gently (even by giving vehicles a more realistic number of Hull Points) then we would be in the situation where realistic mech armies where still out there and so would be the tools to beat them in an effective way - ie, a fun more balanced game. As it is now the vehicles will get left on the shelf and the game will swing in completely the opposite direction.

Cheddar follows the meta, at the moment whats in is the fromage from the skies approach of fliers/jump troops etc. That reversal has been driven by the corresponding rules shifts in 6th edition and I personally agree with the OP that it has gone to far - I dont dislike the Hullpoint mechanic, but I think they have made vehicles too weak and all that has done / will do is shift the game radically to the otherside of the spectrum - It isnt a solution its just shifting the problem.

squeekenator
03-07-2012, 23:59
Effective tank destruction is not typically accomplished by charging ten dudes up and slapping grenades all over it, that's a pretty purely 40k thing there. In real life, that's a desperation tactic used in heavily built up areas typically done with improvised flame weapons or specialized tank hunting details with extremely high casualty counts.

Well yes, but 40K is not real life, and a game doesn't necessarily need to mirror real life to involve tactics.

knightofthewr
04-07-2012, 00:23
Well yes, but 40K is not real life, and a game doesn't necessarily need to mirror real life to involve tactics.

What is preventing real life tanks from getting 10 guys with grenades crawling all over it?

Infantry support

you want your tank to live against potential assault, get infantry and other troop killers to cover it.

Fast assault armies are slowed (a bit) by the newer rules with the exception of outflank and deep strike which all have inherent risks.

Vehicles move faster, and can take better advantage of cover (and can use infantry and other vehicles as cover)

Fear Ghoul
04-07-2012, 01:30
Hull points don't make vehicles less survivable - they make vehicles less random. Now you can't shake/stun a vehicle all game long due to random luck, and at the same time its harder to one-shot it through the new damage table with anything AP3 or higher.

The argument the OP presents against hull points is a fallacy - he uses the observation (exaggerated or otherwise) of extremely unlikely events (such as terrain destroying dreadnoughts or grenade-wielding units defeating dreadnoughts in combat) to criticize a rule designed around the average probability. The statistics behind these events have already been elaborated, and yet he still does not listen. He is therefore stubborn and will not likely listen to anything anyone says.

The argument that Spiney Norman presents is also a fallacy - he uses analogies involving units or armies renowned for their anti-tank capabilities and claims therefore that vehicles are too weak. This is demonstratably false:

A lascannon in the hands of a Tactical Marine must shoot at a Land Raider slightly under 18 times before destroying its target. A Devestator Marine with the effects of an auspex must roll about 14 times before achieving the same. That lascannon in the hands of a Tactical Marine would have to shoot slightly under 36 times if a Land Raider had 8 hull points as he suggests, and no army currently in the game can currently output that amount of firepower on a Land Raider reliably except Imperial Guard and Necrons. Everyone else would have to use melta weapons to even stand a chance, thus ensuring the current dominance of Imperial Guard, Necrons, and melta in the anti-tank arena anyway. Additionally, the Gauss rule for Necron Warriors comes into effect within the range of their weapons, which at 24" is hardly a threat to Land Raiders with their 36"+ weaponry.

Vaktathi
04-07-2012, 06:07
Well yes, but 40K is not real life, and a game doesn't necessarily need to mirror real life to involve tactics.Right, but when the point was brought up that it's "more realistic", I think it's hard to argue on those grounds.





What is preventing real life tanks from getting 10 guys with grenades crawling all over it?

Infantry support

you want your tank to live against potential assault, get infantry and other troop killers to cover it. Self defense machine guns, grinding enemy troops beneath tracks (these are large multi-ton vehicles moving at speed after all), and above all, pinning effects from automatic weapons which this game takes no account of. In this game you pretty much literally need to use infantry as a physical block, that's not how infantry support in real life works, they don't physically stand in front of the tank and stop an opponent from running up to it. The former two aren't things tanks can really do (as they have to shoot everything at one target and Tank Shocks can only hurt things that decide to stick around), and the latter just doesn't exist as a mechanic in 40k. A handful of automatic rifles and a squad machine gun nearby area good deterrent to real life tank assault without even needing to hit anything, in 40k you might kill one or two dudes and the rest will run on uncaring.



Fast assault armies are slowed (a bit) by the newer rules with the exception of outflank and deep strike which all have inherent risks. By a full turn on average that they have to sit and take fire.



Vehicles move faster, and can take better advantage of cover (and can use infantry and other vehicles as cover)Lower average cover, movement largely the same, *far* easier to hit and destroy through close combat, etc.




Hull points don't make vehicles less survivable - they make vehicles less random. Partially true, they do make them less random, They do however make them less survivable, that's the entire point, making them less random with an artificial cap on how many hits they can take is, by definition, making them less survivable. An autocannon will need, on average, half as many shots to kill an AV12 vehicle, it just needs to roll a 5 or 6 on the armor pen 3 times, rather than needing a 6 followed by a 5 or 6 to kill a tank, so where before you needed an average of 36 autocannon shots per 1 destroyed result, now you just need 18 shots to get an average of 3 glances/pen's, with the (admittedly reduced) chance to kill right out still in.

The big kicker is that once a vehicle is down to one hull point, the damage table becomes irrelevant, all you need is to meet the armor value to kill it, sod rolling on a damage table. Double tap with bolters to the side of a chimera, your next missile to the front kills it on a 4+.


Now you can't shake/stun a vehicle all game long due to random luck, and at the same time its harder to one-shot it through the new damage table with anything AP3 or higher. Most weapons however that would be used to one-shot tanks immediately are generally those low AP high S weapons, meaning alpha strikes are still just as devastating, but you're much easier to grind down with weaponry that has no business in an AT role, and when it comes to CC quite often it's going to be an auto-kill, especially against stationary vehicles where you might as well just take them off the board when a squad gets into base contact, with moving vehicles being not much better off.

Also, shaking/stunning it without end is usually the result of lower than average poor dice luck, just as one can make saves all day long some times, others you just can't roll higher than 1's or 2's, that's just the nature of a dice game. One will notice nobody bothered with/desires a mechanic that says "a space marine dies if he's forced to take 3 or more Armor Saves".

Besides, that's why there were cheap units with tons of AP1 weapons like 80pt BS4 5 melta toting Fire Dragon squads, 90pt IG CCS's sporting quad "Bring It Down" Meltaguns, Termicide triple melta termi's, etc.


The argument the OP presents against hull points is a fallacy - he uses the observation (exaggerated or otherwise) of extremely unlikely events (such as terrain destroying dreadnoughts or grenade-wielding units defeating dreadnoughts in combat) to criticize a rule designed around the average probability. Except, it's not built around probability, it in no way reflects anything of the previous durability of vehicles, it's simply a flat cap that says "meet or exceed armor X times, vehicle dies".

If glancing hits didn't remove hull points, or tanks had 5 or 6, then one might have a case, but 3 is far too low to reflect any reasonable average. 3 reflects a reasonable probability if all we're talking about is penetrating hits, but then why bother having a damage table, or rolling dice at all, if we're going to force an average anyway?

Once glances are taken into account, then the average goes straight out the window. One had just as much probability on a penetration to roll nothing but stun/shaken results as explodes/destroyed results, and it didn't matter if you rolled 6 shaken results as long as you rolled a single 5 or 6 in the mix with it, heavily leaning the average more towards destruction than perpetual stunning. The only time it was even any issue was glances, and glancing hits are just that, glancing (striking obliquely and bouncing off at an angle, brief and indirect), they may cause exterior damage but nothing sufficient to truly harm the vehicle. Hull points ignore that, and make glancing hits far too capable as a cumulative outcome in regards to destroying vehicles.





A lascannon in the hands of a Tactical Marine must shoot at a Land Raider slightly under 18 times before destroying its target. A Devestator Marine with the effects of an auspex must roll about 14 times before achieving the same. That lascannon in the hands of a Tactical Marine would have to shoot slightly under 36 times if a Land Raider had 8 hull points as he suggests Except on a penetrate it kills on exactly the same rolls as it did in the previous edition still, that hasn't changed. All we've done is said that the Tac Marine just needs an average of 13 shots to kill a Land Raider through Hull Points alone, *ON TOP* of still having the 1 in 18 chance to kill. So yes, very much so less survivable, not simply less random.


Everyone else would have to use melta weapons to even stand a chance, thus ensuring the current dominance of Imperial Guard, Necrons, and melta in the anti-tank arena anyway. Which was sorta the point, heavy tanks were fairly resistant to long range single shot weapons aside from stuff like Railguns, and very vulnerable to massed close range firepower, while Lascannons were very effective against medium and light armor but still capable of doing something to heavy armor. One will notice many of the other armies that aren't in that group still sport 4E books, and one could very easily include Dark Eldar and most SM books as having effective AT in terms of melta, lances, etc.


Additionally, the Gauss rule for Necron Warriors comes into effect within the range of their weapons, which at 24" is hardly a threat to Land Raiders with their 36"+ weaponry.Speaking of fallacies. Lets look at Land Raiders. One of three types (arguably the least popular type) has 36"+ ranged weaponry, the other two do not. Second, frequently 24" range can be achieved by turn 2 even with the raiders butt to the edge, if not turn 1. Third, Land Raiders don't sit back and shoot, they typically carry assault troops, they advance, they're poor points as long range shooting platforms only, thus, they close range quickly. Arguing that Warriors with a 24" range hardly being a threat to Land Raiders is rather silly when we look at the realities of the situation.