A Vehicle = How Many Boots?

[ElectricPaladin]

Boots on the table. It's a common phrase, up there with "boys before toys" in the world of common wisdom for list building in 40k. You need boots on the table to hold objectives and avoid getting tabled. Some factions, like the Tau and Imperial Guard, have fragile boots that need a lot of protection. In other factions, like the various flavors of Space Marines, the boots are tough enough to be one of your best assets.

One thing I've never been sure of is how many "boots" does a vehicle count as? True, a vehicle can never hold an objective, but they can do lots of other thing boots can do. Vehicles can contest objectives, draw fire, and attack the enemy. For the more numerous factions, vehicles as boots might not enter the calculation, but for the elite and outnumbered forces, I think it can be worth discussing.

So, how many boots do you think each vehicle counts as? None? One? One per hull point? More or less? Discuss.

[Denzark]

Depends on the points cost.

[evilamericorp]

Three. Three boots. Unless you're talking about Emperor Titans; those are worth four thousand eight hundred and forty seven boots.

[DarkLink]

There is no linear relationship. Vehicles are valuable for three main reasons.

First, transports are force multipliers. A Rhino makes 10 Marines like 50% better, because the can hide inside and move very fast, even if there are limitations to balance that.

Vehicles also force your opponent to invest in anti-armor, another force multiplier not exclusive to transports.

Vehicles also bring good firepower themselves, but that is a linear relationship, so you can directly compare.

So, because many vehicle advantages are force multipliers rather than direct advantages, you can't usually directly compare.

[Archon]

. Vehicles can contest objectives, draw fire, and attack the enemy.

Page 123 -> Denial Units ... so I think they can not contest.

I think you should have a good mix of vehicles and foottroops.

Transports give you relative protection and speed.

Small agile vehicles can be annyoing with shooting.

Tanks lay down heavy fire - whats that worse in boots? A leman russ can kill a squad in a singel shooting phase.

[thecactusman17]

First off, vehicles don't contest objectives. It's what prevents that "turn 5 rush" mechanic.

Second, vehicles aren't worth boots, but they can multiply the effectiveness of the boots you have brought. In 5th edition, some vehicles multiplied their associated boots exponentially. In 6th, they Are worth exactly as many boots as they remove from the enemy force.

Unless they are flying dedicated transports. Those are worth at least a semi trailer full of boots.

[Xenith]

Vehicles don't have feet, so they count as none.

[Zithaska]

Second, vehicles aren't worth boots, but they can multiply the effectiveness of the boots you have brought. In 5th edition, some vehicles multiplied their associated boots exponentially. In 6th, they Are worth exactly as many boots as they remove from the enemy force.

Unless they are flying dedicated transports. Those are worth at least a semi trailer full of boots.

I think he hit it on the head. Dedicated transports (e.g. Razorback) should be considered upgrades to the squad(s) they are for, much like a magical banner in WFB.

For battle tanks (e.g. Leman Russ) and arguably transports such as Chimeras that have more combat effectiveness, I would consider how many weapons it carries, the type/quality of weapons, their effective range, and how many shots it puts out. Let's take the Leman Russ example, with a hull mounted heavy flamer, heavy bolter sponsons, and the battle cannon. The heavy bolters are simple to calculate, it gives you 6 Str 5, AP 4 shots with a 32" effective range. It gets trickier with template weapons. You are going to have to figure out your own math when it comes to those. Myself, I use a "3, 4, 5" rule. Meaning, small blasts can usually hit 3 models, flamers hit 4, and large blasts hit 5.

So, in my calculation, the Leman Russ above puts out 10 Str 5, AP 4 shots with an effective range of 8" and 6 at an effective range of 32", and 5 Str 8, AP 3 shots with an effective range of 72".

You could then math-hammer it from there (i.e. consider the tanks Ballistic Skill, its Armor Value to determine its survivability, etc.) , consider your strategy and potential opponents, and make decisions such as whether it would be more useful to swap the heavy flamer for a heavy bolter to boost your effective range and number of shots at it.

This gives you a rough comparison, as boots on the ground ultimately are only worth their combat effectiveness. So, knowing what a Leman Russ as armed above offers at 170 pts, you could compare it to a Blood Angels Devastator squad with three heavy bolters and a plasma cannon that puts out 9 Str 5 AP 4 and 3 Str 7 AP 2 shots with an effective range of 32" at 135 points, and decide which one to take.

Have fun!

[evilamericorp]

Vehicles don't have feet, so they count as none.

Really? Then what are those things that Walkers stand on?

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m1252429_99120101014_SMDreadnoughtmain_873x627.jpg

[thecactusman17]

Walkers don't count for vehicles as far as I'm concerned, they are just Infantry with a better Toughness and Ld. value.

[thelion]

so what we are trying to quantify is the value of vehicles as compared to troops on the board. well while i agree that there is no direct compairason i would have to state that first it would change from army to army ( rhinos value vs chimaras value as applied to the value of space marines vs the value of ig troppers) secondly it would also greatly depend on the skill sets of the player playing them if a player usuly uses a foot slog-er army and is not use to including vics in his army he will than not be as skilful in the use of a heavy vic army as someone who plays one regularly. witch brings me to the issue of play stile some play-stiles will not lend well to the inclusion of vics in the army while others will so in short there are too many things to consider and no one right answer to this question.

[The AKH]

I think the value of vehicles is better measured in terms of "how many of the enemy's boots will this unit negate?"

[thelion]

I think the value of vehicles is better measured in terms of "how many of the enemy's boots will this unit negate?"

well said, and as far as it goes certain vics can also pay for themselves by by forcing the other player to change there tactics or strat in order to deal with them. case in point in a 2500pt game this weekend i took 3 land raider crusaders and used them not only as a troop transport but all so as rolling cover for my death wing army. my opponent did not see this coming (normally i i just bring a whole bunch of terms and death wing assault in) and was forced to try to leapfrog away from me for the whole game and had to focus fire on them in order to kill them (two lived to the 5th turn, and one lived for the whole game) pulling alot of that fire off of my troopers.

[Xenith]

Really? Then what are those things that Walkers stand on?

How many boots it it wearing?

[BadTeef]

IMO what you should do is have a game of boots vs treads and see what happens.

PLay a few games pitting a Tank army vs a Footslogger army...

[The AKH]

Generally that ends badly for the boots*, but outcomes could shift in 6th.

*I speak from experience.

[incenerate101]

You must also consider the point cost of the vehicle. How many BASIC boots can you get for the same cost? It makes a good way to compare the value of each. The effectiveness of a certain vehicle vs the effectiveness of a equal point value of troops. What does each do? Consider their weapons movement combat prowess survivability ect.

I believe that the above is the only direct way to compare the two.