Vehicles

[Grenadier]

There's certain things about the rules for vehicles which I hate and love.

I hate that strength 5 now is a main weapon. I remember when it wasn't.

I hate that you can now assault it from any side and the hits go on the rear. It was logical when the hits came on the facing you'd be in contact with.

I love that the damage charts have been improved to make them more survivable in battle. And hope it'll continue to be so in the next edition.

I'm not too fond of the vehicle squadron concept. To think my tanks in a squad must all fire at the same target. And since my tanks are always a mix to make them more versatile it often means some weapons may be ineffective depending on the target. The upside is they're a little safer now in squadrons.

And it never made much sense to me that a vehicle must turn all of its guns on one target. You have crewmen for each gun. And sponsons. Logically you'd think they could fire at will when targets are presented. The Baneblade and other superheavy tanks can and so they perform more like you'd expect a vehicle too.

I would like to see better upgrades for vehicles. I recall an Imperial Guard Armored company that had doctrines for the tanks. And some essentially worked like vehicle upgrades. I'd not mind seeing these brought back to life in the form of additional upgrade options. Like anti-mag coating on your armor making it harder for mines and bombs.

[Psychosplodge]

*cough* 2nd edition vehicle rules *cough*

Not very survivable though...but definitely fun.lol

[Grenadier]

From what I gather second edition rules were very wild. I heard you had to roll to see what happens when using a flamer. Like guys on fire catching or guys on fire and stuff.

[Shotgun Justice]

2nd ed = much smaller forces, many many more dice rolls and cards and templates and counters and tables and charts and stupid triangular dice and and and

2nd ed was great craic but slow unless you knew it very well.
As for 2nd ed vehicles, every vehicle had it's own datafax - unit entry printed on a card that included individualised damage tables for every vehicle. The amount of times my leman russ turret got blown off and landed on the head of something important was unreal.

[LordGrise]

The Tau have this thingie called a 'target lock'... Yeah, for five points our Hammerheads can fire on as many targets in one turn as we have weapons to fire... oh, and for a further ten points we got this thingie called a "multi-tracker" that lets us do it as a fast vehicle...

::savoring the irony::

[Grenadier]

When the Tau first came out I did have a small army and was highly impressed with their vehicles.

[Thornblood]

I like that russ' have to fire at the same target because otherwise the guard shooting phase would last so much longer. I cant explain it with realism but I like the rule.

As for squadrons, just take squadrons of one vehicle. Problem solved. If you have more vehicles that sops that from working, then its probably helps as a handicap to counter the of overpoweredness a vehicle squadron.

Anyway by the same logic each member of a squad could fire at a different target. Which is realistic but stops us plaaying big battles and starts us playing skirmish games. 40k is more and more tooled up for bigger games. a tank crew, or a squadron of vehicles are, essentially, a squad.

[Grenadier]

What measurable value is there in tank shocking with vehicles? I've never attempted it despite all my many tanks. From what I understand you cannot kill models if you try to tank shock. Which ruins the fun. I want to grind people into paste beneath my tracks! It seems all it does is maybe break up front lines temporarily. But doing so puts your vehicle in great danger as in 40k basic infantry have a lot of power to kill a tank in an assault. I lose most of my tanks to being assaulted by my opponent. Despite what direction he actually assaults me from the hits always go against my rear armor. It's a certainty then if you let your tank anywhere close to infantry it is going to be taken out. So what real value is there in tank shock?

The only good thing about tank versus infantry action is the very rare occasion someone elects to do a death or glory and they fail at it.

[Hellstorm]

I think they need to make tank shock an initiative test or take a wound kinda thing. It would be much more realistic but unfortunately not very balanced.

[Skewiff]

I get tired fast of having to declare the tank shock distance, a random throw back rule - just move the bloody thing!

[Underdose]

Although I missed out on 3rd and 4th ed, I do wish they'd kept a few of the vehicle rules from there - defensive weapons being strength 5 and below, immobilised in a squadron only turns into destroyed if the rest moves away... Still, as the OP said, the increased survivability is nice. Here's hoping 6th introduces some kind of shooting at multiple targets :D

[xxvaderxx]

I love that the damage charts have been improved to make them more survivable in battle. And hope it'll continue to be so in the next edition.


I agree that damage charts has to either be more survivable or weapons with str 8+ be more inaccessible/expensive.

[MrGiggles]

There's definitely some oddness to vehicles in 5th. Overall, I think they're an improvement over 4th where everything seemed to be a stationary or slow bunker, but the balance definitely isn't quite right yet.

The move and shoot aspect of vehicles is great. I honestly like being able to move things around and still fire some weapons. I think it moves vehicles away from the static fortification end of the scale.

There does need to be some tweaking done on cover and the damage charts since things have swung toward vehicles being pretty hard to deal with. Honestly, I'd just settle for making destroyed results scary to the models embarked in vehicles or just give embarked models a reason to get off the bus.

I don't even mind Vehicle Squadrons. I'd just like the option to stop if I get an immobilized result. It'd give me a reason to use things like Grot Riggers a little more. If I decide to keep going, then I don't really have an issue with taking a destroyed result, but having the ability to stop and repair (or try to when I've bought the upgrade) would be nice.

The Defensive Weapons thing is a little goofy, but I can understand it to a degree. My main beef with it is really with the Ork Codex. The only Defensive Weapon I can put on my tanks is a Kannon. It's a little silly, but it's a symptom of that book coming out very late in 4th Edition. Ideally, I'd be able to bolt some Shootas or Twin-Linked Shootas onto my tanks and go to town. Perhaps in 6th Ed or in the next Ork book.

The final thing I find a little questionable is the 2" disembarkation distance. It doesn't seem to accomplish much aside from moving things twice in the movement phase. I don't think it's game breaking or anything, it just seems inefficient to me. My only thought is to just take your movement the turn you disembark from the access point on the vehicle. I'm betting there's a hole in that logic somewhere, but it's a bit early for me to figure out what it is.

[Grenadier]

I agree with the disembarking thing. Especially since you have issues like exits being blocked by the enemy, etc. I figure disembarking should be done like a regular move. Maybe, to represent soldiers hurriedly leaving the vehicle, you could roll a D6 to gain a little extra movement when you first rush out of the vehicle.

[Turner]

I joke with a friend all the time about what the crewmen are saying to each other as they are ordered to fire.


Crewman: But sir, there's a group of Ork Nobz, with power claws that are about to assault us.
Commander: We held our position for a reason, now fire everything we've got at those ork gretchin way way way way way way over there. That's an easy kill point for us.
Crewman: Sir, how about we fire the main battle cannon at them, and fire the hull mounted heavy flamer and two sponsons heavy flamers at the Ork Nobz... with power claws. I can't stress enough th-
Commander: I can't stress enough those gretchin! Do you see them all the way over there? Just standing in the middle of the table, practically on the edge of the retreat zone... this kill point is ours gentlemen!
Crewman: But sir
Commander: Fire!

Me: Annnnnd my three heavy flamers cover most of your ork nobz squad but are well out of range of those gretchin... so the flamers miss.
My Friend: Darn.

[Duskstorm]

I hate that assaulting unita always hit the rear armour, even if there is no way for them to get to it!!

And as for squadrons, having vehicles destroyed when they're immobilised is rediculous, I could see it if the squadron was moving away, but for it to just always destroy them is crap, it makes putting vehicles into squadrons more easily destroyed imo.

I also think that vehicles should be able to split their fire however they see fit, as a matter of fact, I think units of infantry should be able to as well. Why would the missile launcher be fired at the unit of troops when there's a tank barreling down on them as well? Makes no sense.

[Akela99]

I don't think we need rules to make the IG parking lot any better

[Lord Inquisitor]

Using super heavy rules for normal vehicles could alleviate some of your concerns.

[bob10182]

I do miss some of the rules concerning assaulting vehicles. I would like them to be faster or at least get benefits from moving faster I.e. harder to hit, enemy bs -1 shooting at a vehicle that moved 6". I just picture our current vehicles and how fast and maneuverable they are.

[Grenadier]

I wish there was a top armor value. Here's why:

The weirdest thing concerning vehicles I ever experienced was in one game. Some troops on a slightly elevated position shot at one of my tanks. Due to the tank's position and their position when you stooped to gauge line of site the only clear shot they had was on the top armor. From their point of view you couldn't see any side of the tank at all. Now, the simplest thing is to still take the shot on the side facing the shooters. But it just seemed odd to me since in order to hit said side they'd have had to shoot through a wall on the edge of the building they were on. Drawing a line of sight right to the edge would have required that. It was just a very weird one time only incident.

[doom-kitten]

As a tank lover I find the 40k tanks to rarely live up to their hype even the LR is not as awesome with the mass melta storm and lance weapons, I kind of hope the LR and similiar vehicles gain something akin to Super Heavy rules such as Structure Points. A better damage table would be nice and the ability to engage multiple target would be nice, the movement and shooting rules are pretty weak to as mosy vehicles will only be able to fire if they move 6 or less, this is absurd as a vehicle should be able to move faster then infantry and still engage otherwise whats the point of the increased speed? As for top armour, historicly the top of a tank is it's weakest point (about equal to it's underside or rear), making them vulnerable to heavy artillery and aircraft. This is mostly due to the turret which is often lightly armoured due to the fact that it needs to contain a weapon, spare ammo, tank commander and gunner (sometimes gunner and commander are same dude). Exceptions are obvisious like the German Panther or Tiger and most modern tanks have enhanced or specialised armour to deal with this.

[pathwinder14]

*cough* 2nd edition vehicle rules *cough*

Not very survivable though...but definitely fun.lol

Like shooting Eldar Dreadnoughts (Wraithlords for all the new people) in the legs.... :)

[Grenadier]

I knew the top armor is traditionally weak. But considering the nature of that incident I described and the requirement you have to draw line of site to the target I felt maybe having a top armor value would help. In that incident you couldn't draw any line of sight directly to any side of the tank. Only the top. If there was a top armor value it would cause players to be more careful going near buildings or any terrain which serves to elevate infantry.

I'd like to see all vehicles be given a chance to make a save against damage. I don't have it handy right ow but I recall you could make a save with some upgrade or doctrine that came in an Armored Company list f the past. My idea is you get one roll per glancing or penetrating result.

In addition I think a rule should be in place for all vehicles that the crew can attempt to self repair. Except of course for vehicle destroyed results. This way if you lose a gun or end up immobilized you could spend the next turn trying to fix it.

And I would like to see assaulting vehicles changed. In the first turn the hits should only come on the side the attackers make contact with. None of this "all hits are on the rear automatically." Because this totally negates things like how fast the vehicle was moving. Or maybe only one or two models made it into contact with the vehicle. Or the vehicle is positioned in such a way they can't even get to the rear. And the longer the vehicle remains in assault the more dangerous it gets for it. In subsequent turns the assaulters can swarm the vehicle thus justifying hits on the rear. When you figure anything with strength 4 can at least glance the rear, and 5 penetrate it it, there's far too much stuff out there that can take out a tank easily.


As a tank lover I find the 40k tanks to rarely live up to their hype even the LR is not as awesome with the mass melta storm and lance weapons, I kind of hope the LR and similiar vehicles gain something akin to Super Heavy rules such as Structure Points. A better damage table would be nice and the ability to engage multiple target would be nice, the movement and shooting rules are pretty weak to as mosy vehicles will only be able to fire if they move 6 or less, this is absurd as a vehicle should be able to move faster then infantry and still engage otherwise whats the point of the increased speed? As for top armour, historicly the top of a tank is it's weakest point (about equal to it's underside or rear), making them vulnerable to heavy artillery and aircraft. This is mostly due to the turret which is often lightly armoured due to the fact that it needs to contain a weapon, spare ammo, tank commander and gunner (sometimes gunner and commander are same dude). Exceptions are obvisious like the German Panther or Tiger and most modern tanks have enhanced or specialised armour to deal with this.

[Rissan4ever]

And I would like to see assaulting vehicles changed. In the first turn the hits should only come on the side the attackers make contact with. None of this "all hits are on the rear automatically." Because this totally negates things like how fast the vehicle was moving. Or maybe only one or two models made it into contact with the vehicle. Or the vehicle is positioned in such a way they can't even get to the rear. And the longer the vehicle remains in assault the more dangerous it gets for it. In subsequent turns the assaulters can swarm the vehicle thus justifying hits on the rear. When you figure anything with strength 4 can at least glance the rear, and 5 penetrate it it, there's far too much stuff out there that can take out a tank easily.
1) There is a consideration for how fast a vehicle moved, or rather if it moved at all. A tank that moved is only hit on a 4+ in assault, and a Fast vehicle that moved flat-out is only hit on a 6.
2) I think it's good that infantry can hit rear armor in an assault. Historically, tanks have always feared being swarmed by infantry. All it takes is one guy to pull a hatch open and toss a grenade in, and BOOM! the tank's out of action. This rule is an easy way to simulate that.

What I do think would improve things is if there were some sort of "It's gonna blow!" move that infantry could get after blowing up a vehicle in assault. It makes no sense for a soldier to slap a meltabomb on the side of a tank and then stand there while the thing goes off!

[Grenadier]

I'm talking about in the initial first assault. I've always took it that the actual length of the game just represents a few minutes of battle. And that a turn represents even less time. With this in mind in the first assault on a vehicle I think the hits should come on the side the assault comes in from. No instantly swarming around the tank to get to the weak points in the first assault turn. Now, if in the next turn the tank moves away from the assault then the guys assaulting it may be able to get in on the rear armor. And if it does not move out all models now are swarming the tank so hits could come on the rear. But I think each models hits should be resolved on the side it is contacting personally.

And I agree with your "it's gonna blow" idea. Assaulting a tank is s risky to the attackers as it is the tank. I've lost ample assault marines over the course of many games when a tank blew up. Assaulters ought to get a move to get some distance from the tank. And what about meltabombs? I've never used a demolition charge in my Guard but if I'm not mistaken it can be thrown right? So why not meltabombs?

[SolidGopher]

I loved the old Hellhound rules, when it couldn't fire in the forward arch if moved, only the side or rear because it would run into its own flame. always thought it was cool. and the old Escape Hatch upgrade, the ability to have the crew escape and deny the kill point! easiest way to tick off your opponent.