PDA

View Full Version : Vehicle heavy in 6th(not from the ? rules)



megatrons2nd
16-02-2012, 06:07
Do you guys think that the heavy use of Vehicles will decrease with 6th edition?

I think it will remain in remain a major part of the game, but I think the heavy use of vehicles will diminish for all but the Imperial Guard. GW seems to swing balance wildly between editions, so I think that vehicles(mostly tanks) will still be useful, but will be either more expensive(see most Necron vehicles) or death traps for infantry once again.

Edit: Wrong forum please move.

KarlPedder
16-02-2012, 06:18
The Necron vehicles are expensive due to the nature of the Necrons. I hope they will attempt to successfuly balance the pros and cons of using transports vs footslogging but I really don't see them nerfing transports to the point where they are undesirable.

Blink
16-02-2012, 08:13
I should hope so. Necron vehicles feel ridiculously overpriced as there is SO much already available to handle open topped AV13. Even under the "leaked" 6th edition rules, they feel pretty papery, though not as bad. I would imagine tanks getting a little bit of a nerf or a price increase in future releases.

Tarax
16-02-2012, 09:04
If they would do a price increase in future codices, then they should also do Errata where all vehicles in current codices are amended, so older codices aren't having cheap(er) vehicles.

Ozorik
16-02-2012, 09:24
Transports really need to be fixed, they are far too cheap and far too useful as it is. They are quite easy to fix though, all that really needs to be done to them is to remove firepoints entirely and prevent transported units capturing objectives. You may actually see infantry dismount then.

Cthell
16-02-2012, 10:21
As an Eldar player, I'd like to point out that our transports are expensive as well - with a base cost of 100pts for a wave serpent, it's really galling to see marines getting Rhinos for ~35pts.

Of course, in the Eldar case, it's because all our vehicles are priced for 4th ed

MagicHat
16-02-2012, 10:39
Transports aren't going nowhere. No chance in hell that they will be nerfed.
In Sweden, a tactical squad is 190 points and costs 280 SEK, while a Rhino is 35 points and costs 270 SEK.
If marine players start using foot armies, GW lose out on a huge profit. The other armies have this as well.


Transports really need to be fixed, they are far too cheap and far too useful as it is. They are quite easy to fix though, all that really needs to be done to them is to remove firepoints entirely and prevent transported units capturing objectives. You may actually see infantry dismount then.

Truly a terrible strike towards the BA, SW, and GK razorback lists.
And screw D/Eldar and IG for not playing space marines.

trigger
16-02-2012, 11:13
Gw are sort of stuck here , last edition rhinos were 50pts basic and no one brought them , now theta are 35 and there to cheep.
I think rules changes such as not being able to claim or contest whilst in a vehicle (unless it's assault or open topped) , but hopefully not the stupid rule were you had to get out each time you vehicle was hit.
There is no easy fix for GW on this one


http://www.badwargamers.co.uk/

orkmiester
16-02-2012, 12:01
Transports really need to be fixed, they are far too cheap and far too useful as it is. They are quite easy to fix though, all that really needs to be done to them is to remove firepoints entirely and prevent transported units capturing objectives. You may actually see infantry dismount then.

well for marines you are barking up the wrong tree totally, its the squad inside you should be worried about not the rhino, and would you really want to screw over Dark Eldar? they always relied on shooting outside of their transports for the obvious reason that they are squishy, if this happened it would be a joke.




Truly a terrible strike towards the BA, SW, and GK razorback lists.
And screw D/Eldar and IG for not playing space marines.

The IG are one of the 'worst offenders' with the firepoints, but that is small beer compared to the vendetta crap:mad:

on razorbacks i've only seen a BA razorback spam once but its enough to put you off playing for good, they should be whacked up in cost by a lot make the las/plas combo far more expensive... GK are not so bad, they actually have incentives to get out as they have far more firepower than normal marines and its bonkers to sit in razorbacks for most of the game and lose all those lovely psycannon shots etc:rolleyes:

Overall its not that they need nerfing totally- specific examples casue most of the problems which is partly GW's fault, but much of the blame is directed at the players for doing MSU spam etc which is fine for tourneys but it exposes flaws in the game when(for me anyway...) you may as well not bother playing against some combinations with some armies because the result is never usually in doubt regardless of what you do:eyebrows:


What really needs to happen is 'tweaking'. GW now know where things have gone wrong and they have an opportunity to correct it, what they come up with will be interesting but that is all in the mists of time...

just my humble view:angel:

MagicHat
16-02-2012, 12:36
The IG are one of the 'worst offenders' with the firepoints, but that is small beer compared to the vendetta crap:mad:

on razorbacks i've only seen a BA razorback spam once but its enough to put you off playing for good, they should be whacked up in cost by a lot make the las/plas combo far more expensive... GK are not so bad, they actually have incentives to get out as they have far more firepower than normal marines and its bonkers to sit in razorbacks for most of the game and lose all those lovely psycannon shots etc:rolleyes:

Overall its not that they need nerfing totally- specific examples casue most of the problems which is partly GW's fault, but much of the blame is directed at the players for doing MSU spam etc which is fine for tourneys but it exposes flaws in the game when(for me anyway...) you may as well not bother playing against some combinations with some armies because the result is never usually in doubt regardless of what you do:eyebrows:


What really needs to happen is 'tweaking'. GW now know where things have gone wrong and they have an opportunity to correct it, what they come up with will be interesting but that is all in the mists of time...

just my humble view:angel:

Reducing the Chimeras firepoints too two weapons fired from the hatch and 6 lasguns would weaken the veterans and command squads, which is what everybody complains about. Do you stay safe with less firepower, or jump out and unleash everything?

As a BA player with two razorbacks, I think we are in line with the other 5th edition codicies. I do think there should be more incentive to actually get out of the transports, like GK do.

ErictheGreen
16-02-2012, 13:14
Gw are sort of stuck here , last edition rhinos were 50pts basic and no one brought them , now theta are 35 and there to cheep.
I think rules changes such as not being able to claim or contest whilst in a vehicle (unless it's assault or open topped) , but hopefully not the stupid rule were you had to get out each time you vehicle was hit.
There is no easy fix for GW on this one


http://www.badwargamers.co.uk/

I think that was more to do with transports (and vehicles in general) being much easier to destroy.

Use of tanks will not diminish. As has been pointed out, unless you're looking at metal models, vehicle points to cash ratio is much better for GW than infantry. It's one of the reasons I started deathwing - no need for transports thankyouverymuch.

GW may tilt the game slightly further away from tanks - making them easier to destroy, but the cheap rhino is here to stay.

Cheeslord
16-02-2012, 13:18
Overall its not that they need nerfing totally- specific examples casue most of the problems which is partly GW's fault, but much of the blame is directed at the players for doing MSU spam etc which is fine for tourneys but it exposes flaws in the game when(for me anyway...) you may as well not bother playing against some combinations with some armies because the result is never usually in doubt regardless of what you do:eyebrows:

:

So... its the players fault for exposing flaws in the game? The problem is, if you avoid using powerful lists because they are too good, nobody really knows where to draw the line. At what point is your army "fair" against a certain opponent who is unable/unwilling to use the powerful builds? Would entirely mechanised infantry be fair if you don't use razorbacks? Or no more than 1 rhino/razorback for every 2 infantry units? What if you play from the vanilla marine codex where stuff in general costs more and has less superpowers?

Mark.

Bunnahabhain
16-02-2012, 13:38
Use of tanks will not diminish. As has been pointed out, unless you're looking at metal models, vehicle points to cash ratio is much better for GW than infantry.

Except for the Guard.

At GW list prices. Chimera = 55pts/Ģ20 = 2.75 pts /Ģ
Plastic cadians= 50 pts/Ģ18 = 2.78 pt/Ģ

Assuming you want to run them in a roughly competitive fashion, you're actually looking at:
Chimera, still 55, so still 2.75 pts/Ģ
Squad with 3 x special weapon, so you need a command squad box as well. Make them veterans, so we now have.
melta vets, 100 pts, Ģ18 + Ģ15.50 so now 2.98 pts/Ģ

If we compare to a tactical squad which is 8.26 Pts /Ģ...... Ouch

Economically the Guard can do either. Guard players will still play more than anyone else for an army.

MajorWesJanson
16-02-2012, 21:40
I'd balance the prices a bit, personally. Bump Rhinos to 40 points, Razorbacks to 50, and drop extra armor to 10 points from 15.
Predators need a bump by about 15 points for a base destructor, but either add shots to the autocannon or make it a blast weapon. Then drop the price of the Lascannon turret and sponsons by 10 or 15 points.
Chimaeras I'd also bump 5 points base, but add an option to take an autocannon turret for 20 or 25 points.

Fithos
16-02-2012, 21:59
Looking at it from a business perspective I think the next edition will be ok on vehicles. They probably aren't going anywhere. It's 2 editions from now that they will suck as that is when everyone will have them and GW will need to encourage sales by making something else king of the battlefield. Maybe troops or maybe they will introduce something else like fliers or... Submarines or something...

Ozorik
16-02-2012, 22:49
Truly a terrible strike towards the BA, SW, and GK razorback lists.
And screw D/Eldar and IG for not playing space marines.

Its a start. DE wont be overly affected as they have open topped transports and its not as if the IG need chimera spam to be effective. Something needs to be done when the meta game seems to be dominated by a particular type of list.

Bunnahabhain
16-02-2012, 23:12
Chimaeras I'd also bump 5 points base, Agreed

but add an option to take an autocannon turret for 20 or 25 points.
What are you on? Forge world have an option to change the multi-laser for an auto cannon for +5pts, the multi laser- to auto-cannon upgrade on sentinel is 5pts, and an autocannon for the infantry only costs 10 pts. A chimera autocannon is +5pts, anything more is daft.

Baaltor
16-02-2012, 23:39
I'd balance the prices a bit, personally. Bump Rhinos to 40 points, Razorbacks to 50, and drop extra armor to 10 points from 15.
Predators need a bump by about 15 points for a base destructor, but either add shots to the autocannon or make it a blast weapon. Then drop the price of the Lascannon turret and sponsons by 10 or 15 points.
Chimaeras I'd also bump 5 points base, but add an option to take an autocannon turret for 20 or 25 points.

I agree specifically with the razorback part, they pay partially for their upgrade with a loss of capacity, yet the units that use them usually don't need the capacity. I'm not sure I agree with extra armour bit though, it seems to me everybody takes it, so isn't it overly good if anything?

ReveredChaplainDrake
16-02-2012, 23:45
If you use transports as intended (i.e. move troops up the board without exposing them to assault or anti-infantry fire) then you should be fine. But when using them for cheese and wins (i.e. Chimera pillboxes, surprise scoring, more guns to shoot more targets) then expect a nerf. They'll still be useful, but they'll be a matter of preference rather than a "chicken in every pot and a 3-man Coteaz-blessed Warrior Henchmen squad in every Psyback" kind of mandate.

Remember when MSU 6-man Marine squads with a Lascannon and a Plasma Gun ruled the roost? You could still do something similar with 5th edition Marines (combat squad the Plasma Gun and Lascannon into the same 5-man stationary group), but the Kill Point mechanic and changes to what makes a troop scoring (last man scoring vs >=50% scoring) makes that not quite as worthwhile in every situation. Thus, it went away. That's what I'm predicting for transports.

althathir
17-02-2012, 00:26
As an Eldar player, I'd like to point out that our transports are expensive as well - with a base cost of 100pts for a wave serpent, it's really galling to see marines getting Rhinos for ~35pts.

Of course, in the Eldar case, it's because all our vehicles are priced for 4th ed

Yeah and when it was priced defensive weapons worked differently (mechdar lists lost about 1/2 their firepower), and it wouldn't shock me to see GW fix that by adding aerial assault to quite a few of our vehicles :angel:.


Transports aren't going nowhere. No chance in hell that they will be nerfed.
In Sweden, a tactical squad is 190 points and costs 280 SEK, while a Rhino is 35 points and costs 270 SEK.
If marine players start using foot armies, GW lose out on a huge profit. The other armies have this as well.


Yeah but theres a difference between transports being worthless and being mobile bunkers that units don't need to disembark from. My solution would be to make firing points have a really high risk/reward, if you shoot out of them, you count as open-topped on the damage table, and the unit is entangled (automatic pinning) if wrecked or destroyed in addition to other effects. This brings rhinos and chimeras back in line IMO, while still being useful.


If you use transports as intended (i.e. move troops up the board without exposing them to assault or anti-infantry fire) then you should be fine. But when using them for cheese and wins (i.e. Chimera pillboxes, surprise scoring, more guns to shoot more targets) then expect a nerf. They'll still be useful, but they'll be a matter of preference rather than a "chicken in every pot and a 3-man Coteaz-blessed Warrior Henchmen squad in every Psyback" kind of mandate.

Remember when MSU 6-man Marine squads with a Lascannon and a Plasma Gun ruled the roost? You could still do something similar with 5th edition Marines (combat squad the Plasma Gun and Lascannon into the same 5-man stationary group), but the Kill Point mechanic and changes to what makes a troop scoring (last man scoring vs >=50% scoring) makes that not quite as worthwhile in every situation. Thus, it went away. That's what I'm predicting for transports.

Yeah I agree, they'll still be good (and a common sight) but there will be nerfs.

Schismotive
17-02-2012, 02:28
There are some big issues that need to be fixed; for example as a Black Templar, my rhinos are 50 points, without smoke launchers, searchlights, anything. Aren't those chimera things 55 points...?

darthpoke
17-02-2012, 03:09
From what has been "leaked" (I still believe that's the real thing), it looks like Vehicles will not only stay as strong but get a bit stronger. Multi targeting, anyone?

orkmiester
17-02-2012, 11:23
So... its the players fault for exposing flaws in the game? The problem is, if you avoid using powerful lists because they are too good, nobody really knows where to draw the line. At what point is your army "fair" against a certain opponent who is unable/unwilling to use the powerful builds? Would entirely mechanised infantry be fair if you don't use razorbacks? Or no more than 1 rhino/razorback for every 2 infantry units? What if you play from the vanilla marine codex where stuff in general costs more and has less superpowers?

I see the point and i'm not blasting anybody for taking power lists...

That 'line' is the problem- there are too many 'double standards' in codexes which in my view make the problem worse.

The BA razorback army i saw just summed it up, they can take a special weapon in a 5 man tactical squad whereas vanilla cannot:wtf: no wonder he took that army:rolleyes:

what really gets me (and the other players i know...) is when things just go spam spam spam...:rolleyes: a few razorbacks doesn't hurt anybody but an entire army made up of them:eyebrows:, its boring and makes the game look totally bland.

the above is just my personal view:angel:

Mechanization isn't bad in itself, GW just needs to make decisions about how they want it to develop.

do they wish to make vehicles easier to hit/damage, or do they wish to give infantry a buff here and there? or make it a question of do i do this or that?...

whatever they have decided, we will just have to wait and see...

Toadius80
18-02-2012, 01:30
The BA razorback army i saw just summed it up, they can take a special weapon in a 5 man tactical squad whereas vanilla cannot:wtf: no wonder he took that army:rolleyes:...

No they can't, BA still need 10 in a tac to have special or heavy. Mores the pity.
Easy solution I find against transport spam is the often downtrodden and disregarded rocket launcher. Cheap, effective, versatile and so often overlooked due to other weapons being 'better'.
At S8 it makes a mess of transports. Near on every army can have them or a variation of.
My BA usually have about 6 in 2000pts as they are a great all rounder. Add to that lascannons, meltas and such and MEQ tends not to work too good. Especially when they start getting wrecks/mobilized vehicles hindering moment and line of sight ;-)

Sent from my God Like Device using TapaTalk

althathir
18-02-2012, 01:43
He meant Assault marines not Tacticals, without the jump packs they pretty much look alike.

Designer891
18-02-2012, 04:26
From what has been "leaked" (I still believe that's the real thing), it looks like Vehicles will not only stay as strong but get a bit stronger. Multi targeting, anyone?

I believe they are an early form of the 6th rules as well.

Don't forget vehicles also get easier to hit +1 for being big, also being stationary adds another +1 if I remember right. Fast vehicles will get movement mods to even it out and on multiple glances you can destroy tanks easier.

I really hope they keep those rules in as they will make the game much more tactical and fun. This solves all of the vehicle problems IMO.

megatrons2nd
18-02-2012, 05:02
Though I believe they are an early test of the rules, I think most of it was cut. To include the evasion bit which makes the vehicles easier to target. Now if someone who knows says there is something similar to the evasion rule I will re-evaluate those rules. However as it stands, I do not think most of the "leaked" rules are remaining.

Designer891
18-02-2012, 05:18
Though I believe they are an early test of the rules, I think most of it was cut. To include the evasion bit which makes the vehicles easier to target. Now if someone who knows says there is something similar to the evasion rule I will re-evaluate those rules. However as it stands, I do not think most of the "leaked" rules are remaining.

As it stands none of us know.
I don't see why they would take the evade/big target rule out, I really feel it is the best part of that rule set. Oh well, I'll be crossing my fingers. :)

Stonerhino
18-02-2012, 05:29
I can see the evasion rules getting dumbed down into just a to-hit modifier. The base Ev is 3 and uses the same chart as the curret BS chart. Meaning that an Ev of 4 is just -1 to-hit and things like the Massive special rule or remaining stationary will just confur a +1 to-hit modifier when targeted. It might even be dumbed down to the point that rules like Massive are not even rules we the players see. It could end up as Vehicles/MCs are +1 to hit with shooting attacks.

Which is a lot cleaner and easier then calculating Ev and consalting a chart.

Disclaimer: The leaked rules appear to raw to be a near final draft. So that was just speculation on my part and should not be confused with any rumors.

Designer891
18-02-2012, 05:38
I agree, it will probably be a dumbed down version as long as they keep it in it helps balancing. I don't think making negative/positive mods makes the game much more complicated.

Desca
18-02-2012, 15:29
I really hope they keep those rules in as they will make the game much more tactical and fun. This solves all of the vehicle problems IMO.

I really like the rules too, but they donīt solve all the problems IMO. Transports cannot be used as long range bunkers,
because passengers are limited to 18", thatīs a nice thing. But especially tanks are very hard to destroy. You may
hit them 1 point easier than before, but the -1 on the damage chart is much stronger.
Just as an example. A Rocketlauncher in 5th with BS 4 has a 66% chance to hit a Rhino, a 50% chance to penetrate
AV 11, and a 33% chance to destroy the vehicle. Thatīs a chance of 11% to destroy the Rhino.
In the leaked edition, the chance to hit is 83%, 50% to penetrate, and 16% to destroy. Thatīs only 7% chance to
destroy. Some people think that +1 BS compensate the new -1 of tanks (and the missing -1 of open-topped) but it
doesnīt. Vehicles become much harder to crack and because AP 1 only removes the -1 on the damagechart of tanks,
meltas and railguns suffer even more against non-tank vehicles.

Donīt misunderstand me, I like the ideas of hitting tanks easier, but the compensation with the -1 on the damagechart is to
much. And open-topped should be a disadvantage for vehicles that are not tanks. Maybe the "vulnerable to blasts" rule.

Stonerhino
18-02-2012, 19:54
While a look at the striaght math looks like a it's harder to detroy vehicles. It'a actually a trade off making vehicles weaker then tanks and there is a rule to hurt tanks but not vehicles.

Heres a breakdown, 4 missile launchers @ BS 4:

5th vs AV11 pens only:
(Number of shots)X(3+ to hit)X(50% chance to pen)X(5-6 destroys on the chart)
4X.66X.5X.33= 43.5%

6TH vs vehicle AV11 pens only:
(Number of shots)X(3+ to hit)X(50% chance to pen)X(5-6 destroys on the chart)
4X.83X.5X.33=54.7%

6TH vs Tank AV11 pens only:
(Number of shots)X(3+ to hit)X(50% chance to pen)X(6 destroys on the chart before -1)
4X.83X.5X.166=27.5%

Every roll on the chart in 6th has the potential to basically add +1 to the next roll for the same result. For example stun + stun = weapon damaged. Because of "Hull breach". This is better then what 5th currently has because in 5th 2X immobilized=weapon destroyed. In 6th 2X immobilized=wrecked. This effectivally means that Tanks are effectively one "Damage" tougher then non-tanks. There is +16.6% per shot chance of hitting a vehicle which means more rolls on the damage chart and an increased chance knocking those vehicles out of action.

In short adding the damage modifiers to tanks allows them to be just a little tougher then non-tanks. Whichout giving them an exploitable rule.

Edit:
The rule to hurt tanks is that AP1 effects tanks and not vehicles. Not "HUll Breach" because that effects all vehicles.

Desca
19-02-2012, 00:20
6TH vs vehicle AV11 pens only:
(Number of shots)X(3+ to hit)X(50% chance to pen)X(5-6 destroys on the chart)
4X.83X.5X.33=54.7%

Can you give an example please. I have no non-tank vehicle in mind that is not open-topped and/or a fast skimmer. Maybe
there is one example, but the common case is they are open-topped (so destroyed from 4-6 on damagechart in 5th) and/or
jink (so only hit on 4+ in 6th), what changes the calculation.


6TH vs Tank AV11 pens only:
(Number of shots)X(3+ to hit)X(50% chance to pen)X(6 destroys on the chart before -1)
4X.83X.5X.166=27.5%

That should be 2+ to hit, because tanks are massiv. You calculated it right, so itīs just in the description.


Every roll on the chart in 6th has the potential to basically add +1 to the next roll for the same result. For example stun + stun = weapon damaged. Because of "Hull breach". This is better then what 5th currently has because in 5th 2X immobilized=weapon destroyed. In 6th 2X immobilized=wrecked. This effectivally means that Tanks are effectively one "Damage" tougher then non-tanks. There is +16.6% per shot chance of hitting a vehicle which means more rolls on the damage chart and an increased chance knocking those vehicles out of action.

In short adding the damage modifiers to tanks allows them to be just a little tougher then non-tanks. Whichout giving them an exploitable rule.


But the hull breach rule does only apply, when the damage comes from different units or in different Initiativ phases. So X times
immobilized from one unit is still just immobilized, while in 5th this would already change to weapon destroyed or even wrecked. So
again, you have a downside on this rule, itīs not always stronger, only if 2 or more units do the same damage (except shaken) to
the vehicle/tank.

And remember that non-tank vehicles are not massiv, so they get a 5+ cover save very easy. Also many vehicles are jink, so
you get BS -1. I know that Necrons have some vehicles without jink, also Orcs, but most armies have tanks, fast skimmers
or both (Eldar, Space Marines + variants, Dark Eldar, Tau, Imperial Guard). So the common case is you have a tank or a
jink vehicle. And open-topped lost the +1 on the damagechart, so they get another bonus. With this one, the fact that
they are not massiv (in the leaked ruleset, not sure if it will stay this way) and the jink rule, they got only advantages
with only the downside of hull break, but that is applied to all vehicles.

althathir
19-02-2012, 00:29
There are some big issues that need to be fixed; for example as a Black Templar, my rhinos are 50 points, without smoke launchers, searchlights, anything. Aren't those chimera things 55 points...?

Yeah thats more a templar issue, which will be fixed whenever you guys get updated.


I agree, it will probably be a dumbed down version as long as they keep it in it helps balancing. I don't think making negative/positive mods makes the game much more complicated.

No they don't but the evasion stat just seems so off, I never downloaded the document so maybe it makes more sense in the context of it. It seemed from what I read that it was mainly there to make flyer rules work, but that just seems a backward way of doing.

Stonerhino
19-02-2012, 07:00
Can you give an example please. I have no non-tank vehicle in mind that is not open-topped and/or a fast skimmer. Maybe
there is one example, but the common case is they are open-topped (so destroyed from 4-6 on damagechart in 5th) and/or
jink (so only hit on 4+ in 6th), what changes the calculation.While I was speaking hypothetically, Killer Kans are an AV 11, non-tank, non-fast skimmer, non-open top that's also massive. AV 12 includes almost all walkers.

The discription was copy/paste and I should have cought it. But doesn't effect the outcome.

Just including "Tanks" in the massive rule that also includes MCs and Walkers. I'm pretty sure its a type-o for vehicles. I could be wrong but dought it.

Desca
19-02-2012, 19:40
Just including "Tanks" in the massive rule that also includes MCs and Walkers. I'm pretty sure its a type-o for vehicles. I could be wrong but dought it.

I donīt think that itīs a type-o, because they would have made it 6 times (ground vehicles, skimmers, fast skimmers and 3 times in the list
on side 104) and made the "mistake" to add the massiv rule to tank. To many mistakes in my opinion.

All I wanted to show is that the current issues are not solved that easy and are still a problem in the current form of the leaked rulebook.
Walkers are actual not a real problem in 5th and they suffer a lot by this rules (massiv, not tanks, hit at the rear in cc). And the units that
are to strong/cheap in 5th, like Rhinos, Chimeras, Razorbacks and more are buffed.

Stonerhino
19-02-2012, 22:32
Your right I actually missed that on the chart on page 104.

a1elbow
20-02-2012, 00:20
I would rather GW not nerf vehicles. One of the problems with their game designing has always been that when they address issues in a codex, their answer to "fixing" balance is weakening a unit. The problem with vehicles right now is that given a choice between a unit in a vehicle and a unit on foot, the unit in the transport is almost always the better choice. This is for a few reasons and the two big ones is that the transport basically gives the unit a bunker to hide in, but also that most troop units have rapid fire weapons that are only effective at 12". Even when stationary, eight or nine guys firing at something (with Bolters or Splinter Rifles or whatever) is going to be lucky to kill a model or two. The weapons people care about in Marine squads or units of Warriors or in Guard squads (etc) are the special and/or heavy weapons.

To me, the best way to fix this is to give basic weapons the ability to actually effect things with mass fire from basic weapons. This would most likely necessitate a change to how rapid fire works and the ranges of some weapons, but if most RF weapons could fire twice at max range if stationary, it would at least make people think about having units deployed outside of vehicles. A DE warrior squad with a DL could still camp in the backfield and hurt vehicles, but the other nine guys (rather than being a DL tax/shield) would be able to affect units.

You do that and create a way for units with close topped transports to assault out of them (maybe they gain no assault bonuses or something along those lines) and you both improve basic troops abilities to impact the game (at which point you no longer have to force some books to take troops, since they actually want to) and improve assaults for many armies which right now don't work as well as they should (Banshees and Bezerkers).

Rather than impoverishing things, GW needs to make everything as useful as possible.

Desca
20-02-2012, 01:15
I would rather GW not nerf vehicles. One of the problems with their game designing has always been that when they address issues in a codex, their answer to "fixing" balance is weakening a unit. The problem with vehicles right now is that given a choice between a unit in a vehicle and a unit on foot, the unit in the transport is almost always the better choice. This is for a few reasons and the two big ones is that the transport basically gives the unit a bunker to hide in, but also that most troop units have rapid fire weapons that are only effective at 12". Even when stationary, eight or nine guys firing at something (with Bolters or Splinter Rifles or whatever) is going to be lucky to kill a model or two. The weapons people care about in Marine squads or units of Warriors or in Guard squads (etc) are the special and/or heavy weapons.

To me, the best way to fix this is to give basic weapons the ability to actually effect things with mass fire from basic weapons. This would most likely necessitate a change to how rapid fire works and the ranges of some weapons, but if most RF weapons could fire twice at max range if stationary, it would at least make people think about having units deployed outside of vehicles. A DE warrior squad with a DL could still camp in the backfield and hurt vehicles, but the other nine guys (rather than being a DL tax/shield) would be able to affect units.

You do that and create a way for units with close topped transports to assault out of them (maybe they gain no assault bonuses or something along those lines) and you both improve basic troops abilities to impact the game (at which point you no longer have to force some books to take troops, since they actually want to) and improve assaults for many armies which right now don't work as well as they should (Banshees and Bezerkers).

Rather than impoverishing things, GW needs to make everything as useful as possible.

I am with you for all this things, it would be better to make soldiers on foot stronger, while leaving the transported unit
like it is. But the problem with your mass fire idea is, that the things you affect with mass fire (like RF shotting twice at
max range) are again enemy infantry units. Transported units wouldnīt care, because most RF weapons are S 4, so this
would hurt only infantry again.

The way I think we should go, is making Infantry on foot more flexible in specific situations. Maybe something like going
to ground or reactions, you can choose to react to the enemy actions. Overwatch is one example for it, maybe choosing
to run away like in fantasy when you get charged. In the leaked edition the defensive fire on deep striking troops is an
example for this. Infantry on foot can fire all their weapons, embarked units can do nothing at all. Itīs the right direction,
but IMO itīs not enough.
Add a few special orders that infantry on foot can perform and give them a tactical advantage over embarked troops this
way. But to stay at the theme of this thread, I donīt think that all vehicles should be buffed like in the leaked edition.
Battletanks should get something, so when they are shaken or stunned it shouldnīt effect them too hard, but transports
donīt need another buff after the 5th edition. Bring infantry (especially the non 2+/3+ armor kind) in line with tanks and
transported units. Just give them another niche as transported units, less tough but more flexible (or something similar,
maybe something totally different)

a1elbow
20-02-2012, 02:17
I am with you for all this things, it would be better to make soldiers on foot stronger, while leaving the transported unit
like it is. But the problem with your mass fire idea is, that the things you affect with mass fire (like RF shotting twice at
max range) are again enemy infantry units. Transported units wouldnīt care, because most RF weapons are S 4, so this
would hurt only infantry again.

The way I think we should go, is making Infantry on foot more flexible in specific situations. Maybe something like going
to ground or reactions, you can choose to react to the enemy actions. Overwatch is one example for it, maybe choosing
to run away like in fantasy when you get charged. In the leaked edition the defensive fire on deep striking troops is an
example for this. Infantry on foot can fire all their weapons, embarked units can do nothing at all. Itīs the right direction,
but IMO itīs not enough.


I agree it isn't enough, but I think it is far better to increase strengths than nerf everything is my main point. Going over the top with nerfs is what led to the crappy editions of rules where you have no options and the game really is more about the beer and pretzels than gameplay.

I don't like the ideas of overwatch and reactions in general (please note I haven't read the "leak" and only have vague notions of what is in it based on skimming blog posts and threads on here) because I think it both adds a layer of book keeping I don't believe is necessary to achieve the effects in the game people are looking to accomplish.

It is a little hard for me to fully imagine what RF getting a double shot at max range would have. Yes, transports would still shelter their troops from much of that fire, but the squads inside would be easier to have in range when they (voluntarily or involuntarily) disembark. For example, a unit in a transport that got out to fire or charge will more likely be in range of more units. In the case of a unit sitting in the backfield, that is the problem with what I propose. But otherwise, units moving into midfield are more likely to be entering a very bloody part of the board.

There are a number of other changes that need are needed to address issues with the game, but the important thing is that everything is strong rather than only somethings and the way to do that is to improve the weak parts. GW already tried to balance things by making everything suck, they should go back to the board trying to make things decent. I'd rather see the basic rules be simple and the in-codex rules shake things up, rather than a complicated core ruleset. Complicated ones cause more chain-reactions when the new ruleset comes out than tweaks to a simple one.

Stonerhino
20-02-2012, 05:33
The problem lays more with the point cost of some transports more then the rules for transports. A Chimera cost about the same points as 10 basic guardsmen. But is so much tougher, has more offencive firepower and greatly enhances the survivability of the unit that's being transported. While stilll letting the embarked unit shoot to a great effect.

When you undercost transports you make them a no brainer for the person playing them. Then you run into the current situation where spamming even AV 11 can overwhelm an opponite's anti-tank.

orkmiester
20-02-2012, 10:41
The problem lays more with the point cost of some transports more then the rules for transports. A Chimera cost about the same points as 10 basic guardsmen. But is so much tougher, has more offencive firepower and greatly enhances the survivability of the unit that's being transported. While stilll letting the embarked unit shoot to a great effect.

When you undercost transports you make them a no brainer for the person playing them. Then you run into the current situation where spamming even AV 11 can overwhelm an opponite's anti-tank.

that is too true;)

chimeras shouldn't have been reduced to the cost they are now, not to mention veterans effectively replacing platoons in most situations, which makes the matter worse. Though now they are not as good as they were as we all have learnt how to deal with them...:shifty:

however the marine rhino is costed about right in my opinion, and where i play marine Vs marine is common...


spamming even AV 11 can overwhelm an opponite's anti-tank

to be fair i've done this a few times (but it wasn't all rhinos...) and on reflection it depends upon the army in question, some codexes cannot 'spamm' enough anti-tank to cope effectively. And sometimes its not that an army lacks said anti-tank its just that it is deployed in the wrong place etc, its why i suspect at my club at least the trusty lascannon is comming back into fashion of sorts. Those meltaguns do well but a few long range shots can help 'even' the odds a little:D

:angel:

Stonerhino
20-02-2012, 17:20
Well BS4 vets are another story all together.

I can agree that a Rhino's cost is about right. At least with the reduced range for embarked units in 6th.

I think a big step in reducing the prolification of transports would be to simply make them not scoring. A return to the idea that vehicles are great at taking ground but infantry are needed to hold it. It also forces the tactical decision of wether or not to stay embarked. Stay embarked and have the vehicle's armor protect you or jump out and claim an objective.

aka_mythos
20-02-2012, 18:09
It seems to me the real solution is to ban spamming. That was the whole purpose of the FOC which now has so many exceptions that is pretty meaningless most of the time. Let us just imagine if the next edition actually had a "TRANSPORTS" category in the FOC that like every other non-Troops FOC was limited to 2 or 3 selections. Suddenly balance is returned.

Formerly Wu
20-02-2012, 18:32
It seems to me the real solution is to ban spamming. That was the whole purpose of the FOC which now has so many exceptions that is pretty meaningless most of the time. Let us just imagine if the next edition actually had a "TRANSPORTS" category in the FOC that like every other non-Troops FOC was limited to 2 or 3 selections. Suddenly balance is returned.

...and everyone who has spent the cash to mech up their entire army, or who is playing a mech-based army for fluff purposes, is up squig creek without a choppa.

Mech armies are and should be supported by the rules. The trick is keeping them from being as automatically dominant on the board as they are now.

Battleworthy Arts
20-02-2012, 18:52
...and everyone who has spent the cash to mech up their entire army, or who is playing a mech-based army for fluff purposes, is up squig creek without a choppa.

Mech armies are and should be supported by the rules. The trick is keeping them from being as automatically dominant on the board as they are now.


This is the truth right here.

Mechanized infantry SHOULD be good. I think the simplest solution would be that you must be on foot to hold an objective, and must have been on the objective at the start of the turn.

Stonerhino
20-02-2012, 20:05
The problem with limiting transports to the FOC is that it hurts armies with cheaper multiple units and does not really effect more expensive units.

For example you could limit a Necron army to 3-4 transports and it will not effect most armies. But if you limit Dark Eldar to 3-4 transports it cripples most builds. And not just the MSU armies either.

It's much more balanced to just stop transports from becoming scoring when troops are embarked. It effects all armies equally.

megatrons2nd
21-02-2012, 03:39
It's much more balanced to just stop transports from becoming scoring when troops are embarked. It effects all armies equally.

Except that it benefits some armies over others. Dark Eldar couldn't hold an objective without the help of a transport. Marines will probably be fine without hte extra defense.

Stonerhino
21-02-2012, 05:05
DE are no worse off then IG, Eldar, Orks and slightly worse off then Tau with that change. It has a lesser effect vs MEQ but MEQs are more survivable anyways. As it is a Rhino full of marines is much harder to bring down the a Raider full of warriors. Whether they are embarked or disembarked, it does not matter. But forcing them all to be disembarked to score puts a hamper on all mech armies. And the only real argument against it is that troops that cost less and are less survivable still cost less and are less survivable.

carldooley
21-02-2012, 13:14
It's much more balanced to just stop transports from becoming scoring when troops are embarked. It effects all armies equally.

and then every IG player will start using Colossi in their Heavy slots - AP3, ignores cover - to wipe scoring units off the board. . .

Rhana Dandra
21-02-2012, 14:01
That's why i suggested a while ago that we simply need tiered restrictions on armies' transports.

If they need them a lot, DE for example, then they have a greater allowance: 6 maybe.
SM should have less, around 3 etc.

Stonerhino
22-02-2012, 01:35
They would still have their transports to hide in when the risk of dieing is greater then the potential of claiming an objective. That makes it a tactical decision rather then a no brainer. It will also force those IG players to make choices with their HS slots rather then taking catch all artillery. And it's not like IG players are spamming Colossi now to stop Long Fang spam. It's the same situation, MEQ in cover.

althathir
22-02-2012, 02:24
This is the truth right here.

Mechanized infantry SHOULD be good. I think the simplest solution would be that you must be on foot to hold an objective, and must have been on the objective at the start of the turn.

Agreed I thnk this is the best solution. In addition I think firing points need to be nerfed hard, the chimera and rhino would be fine without them.


Except that it benefits some armies over others. Dark Eldar couldn't hold an objective without the help of a transport. Marines will probably be fine without hte extra defense.

Depends on how the scoring works, Dark Eldar have an advantage when it comes to contesting objectives because of speed so it evens out a bit (and once they get a pain token the're fairly duarable.) the other t3 xenos need new books to be perfectly honest.


and then every IG player will start using Colossi in their Heavy slots - AP3, ignores cover - to wipe scoring units off the board. . .

I can't figure out why they aren't already running it, but again it depends on how scoring works for example if you leave in random game length and start scoring turn 4 other armies would have some time to find answers for problems like these. There is a lot of design space there.


That's why i suggested a while ago that we simply need tiered restrictions on armies' transports.

If they need them a lot, DE for example, then they have a greater allowance: 6 maybe.
SM should have less, around 3 etc.

I think this just gets too messy, and it would invalidate a ton of armies. Nerfing firing points and making units disembark to score is a more fair solution, enforcing comp on everyone is kinda lame IMO.

JDman
22-02-2012, 02:38
Sorry if this has already been mentioned but I do think they will nerf them somewhat but not as much as some people may like.

Its in GWs best interest to make transports affordable for lots of troop choices, mainnly due to the fact that they can profit so well from it.

If players feel like they need a transport for say their marines then GW wants you to buy tons of rhinos. For 35 pts in game they can have players buy a rhino for 30-35$ (cant rememebr off the top of my head).

althathir
22-02-2012, 02:57
JDman - yeah its in GWs best interests for them to remain good, its just right now there really isn't any reason not to have them. Nerfing firing points wouldn't make rhinos or chimeras disappear just make infantry actually get out of them once in while.

TrangleC
22-02-2012, 03:42
Isn't the meta game already swinging back, at least a bit?
I could be wrong, but when I look at battle report videos on Youtube and army lists posted on tabletop forums it seems to me that more and more people are playing more infantry heavy lists again in order to exploit the fact that many opponents are too specialized on anti-Mech and perhaps ill equipped (army list wise and/or strategy wise) to deal with a lot of infantry.