Topic: Vehicle durability in 6th edition

[Warsmith Wulfric]

hi all,
In the few (4+) games of 6th that i have played 2 have been against a mates necons... i found that rhinos, with their 3 hull points are
not the mighty steed that they used to be! I will def be converting them to TL Lascannon razorbacks and just running my
grey hunters in 10 man packs with a Wolf guard in TDA out the front and multiple lascannons cover firing.
Plus once you de-bus you need to stand in the open picking fleas out of ur pelt before you can charge!
But land raider redeemers still rock   

[Lazarus]

I will be running my mech IG this Saturday. So far, in nearly all my games vehicles have gone down really easy. Yes, in a few cases, I was able to fire with something for a turn that would have normally been shaken but it was more than balanced by the ammount of vehicles that were collectively destroyed by hits that would not normally have killed them, and by weapons not normally capable of doing so.

[SeekingOne]

Units like venoms would often die to a couple of hits in 5th edition

Couldn't disagree more...

First of all, in my experience in 5th venoms did not die from a couple of hits often. Rather, they died from a couple of hits sometimes, and at least just as often a couple of hits would leave a venom damaged but alive. And occasionally a couple of hits might even have left a venom with no lasting damage at all.  Right now a couple of hits is 100% guaranteed to kill a venom - and that makes a world of difference IMO.


As a general point, I'd say that by far the greatest change is that Glances now eat through vehicles' HP, and do it reliably. This means that, from statistical standpoint, the actual drop in durability (compared to 5th) is increasingly greater for vehicles with lower AV due to increasigly greater number of multi-shot weapons that can glance them. This explains why people seem to feel that AV13 vehicles are about the same, while LRs have become even tougher (an extra HP also helps a lot of course).

[Grand Master Lomandalis]

Really?  100%?  Shooting at a venom?  If it didn't move, has no cover, and it isn't nighty fight you would at best have a 66% chance to kill out as it does have flicker fields.

Also I would like to point out that a couple hits aren't the same as a couple glances.  So sure a couple his can destroy a venom but it is far from guaranteed.

If you want to  use a more suitable example I would suggest the vyper, even then the only time glances are guaranteed wrecks is the first turn before it has a chance to move.

Never underestimate the power of a 5+ save!!

[Shas'Oink]

Instead of looking at it in isolation, why not also think about it en-masse.

In order to glance a vehicle to death the enemy will need to dedicate a degree of shooting at a vehicle (depending on what weapons they have available this may have to come from a wide array of units). Once a vehicle has been glanced, perhaps leaving one or two HP on it the enemy now has more difficult decisions to make if you have multiple venoms (for example).

Do they continue to shoot at the "damaged" venom in order to try and stop it, or do they go for another because the weapon also has the potential to kill another in one go? (with the idea that as you move closer, more of their weapons could threaten the first one!)

Previously, there wouldn't have been this dilema. You would have glanced the vehicle and at the very least stopped it from shooting (which most light vehicles are best at... think war walkers, vypers, venoms and sentinels!) Now, there is another level of strategy... but ultimately the enemy will still need a degree of luck!

As I think I've already mentioned, I haven't found that I've killed that much simply by glancing it to death!? Though I suspect that some armies might be able to do this better than others (necrons anyone!?)

[SeekingOne]

Also I would like to point out that a couple hits aren't the same as a couple glances.  So sure a couple his can destroy a venom but it is far from guaranteed.

It was an ambiguous choice of words on my side. When I said "hits" I actually meant not any hits (as in "successful rolls To Hit") but rather "unsaved glancing/penetrating hits".

Two unsaved glancing/penetrating hits are guaranteed to destroy a Venom now. In 5th it was likely but still far from guaranteed. That's what I was trying to say.

[Guildmage Aech]

But you're not comparing like for like.

Discounting Jink saves will obviously make the new rules look worse.

[Blood Hawk]

But you're not comparing like for like.

Discounting Jink saves will obviously make the new rules look worse.

Not really, venoms come with flickerfields standard so in either edition they have/had a 5+ save from some source.

[Grand Master Lomandalis]

Jink is more than just the 5+.  If you are within the required distances to get stealth or shrouded will change what kind of save you get from Jink.   Jink can make a world of difference when it comes to vehicle survivability.  So with how SeekingOne initially  worded his post, he is wrong.  Two hits will not guarantee a killed venom.

Two unsaved glances will, but those are harder to get then the 100% guarantee he was stating initially.  And it all comes down to what Hymirl said:

Discounting Jink saves will obviously make the new rules look worse.

[Blood Hawk]

Jink is more than just the 5+.  If you are within the required distances to get stealth or shrouded will change what kind of save you get from Jink.   Jink can make a world of difference when it comes to vehicle survivability.  So with how SeekingOne initially  worded his post, he is wrong.  Two hits will not guarantee a killed venom.

Two unsaved glances will, but those are harder to get then the 100% guarantee he was stating initially.  And it all comes down to what Hymirl said:

Discounting Jink saves will obviously make the new rules look worse.

We talking about the same army?  Only time night fighting comes up is on turn one or at the end of the game essentially.  I am not going to even bother talking about end game night fight because with dark eldar the game is over by turn 3, I either run you over or fall flat on my face, period end of story.  As for turn one, if I went first then my army is hiding out of LOS or at worst behind cover or if failing that in reserve.  Also if I am going second with turn one night fight than I don't get a jink save anyway so meh.  If I went first any raider with CC troops is moving flat out into position or moving directly forward to charge armies that are foolish enough to deploy within 18' of me or to try the gutsy first turn charge.  At that point the raider is rather meaningless to me as its done its job, I would prefer if it lives but now that they I can't contest with raiders and they are MUCH more venerable to assault than they used to be (remember I get flickerfield saves vs. CC attacks  ) jink doesn't make much of a difference.  Most ranged units often are sporting blasters anyway which means they will be getting close for the kill.  Ravagers are about the only DE unit that I use that benefit from this rule, but honestly no one shots at my ravagers much anymore and we where talking about venoms anyway.  Only time I will be using full use of my venoms range is when I am fighting armies that I out range anyway (nids, necrons).  I may also be siting back at range with venoms if they are carrying wracks, at that point they are just cheap troops hiding in the venom to be deposited on objectives late game but if I am bringing that unit it will probably be in reserve to protect it anyway.

So basically jink rule to me is essentially free wargear, it could lead a better save when night fighting is up however given dark eldars play style it won't make much difference.  Also you have to remember that fickerfields are an inv save which I ALWAYS get, which does make a difference trust me.

[Guildmage Aech]

But the point remains a couple of hits won't auto kill vehicles, regardless of where the save comes from. And as you noted, the best way to kill vehicles is still to get close for blasters/melta or assault.

I'm not talking specifically about  venoms and DE here, but in general terms. And I don't think the new rules make vehicles unreasonable fragile. And in some ways they get more effective, being harder to shut down with shaking, stunning and weapon destroyed (taking a random weapon instead of the best weapon often makes a difference).

[Shas'Oink]

The random weapon destroyed result is a key difference, mainly for tanks such as hammerheads, vindicators, fire prisms or even russes, where there is otherwise an obvious 1st pick weapon which can sometimes leave the tank pretty neutered! For vindicators in particular, it means it is well worth investing in a storm bolter and perhaps even a hunter killer missile! just to help protect your main gun!

[Skankin_Catachan]

We all have to keep in mind that the meta of 40k is drastically shifting and not many of of have prepared yet for the change. I feel vehicles are still great. The new template rules make a lot of battle tanks extremely powerful, but that advantage needs an extreme counterbalance. Great, my leman russ can punch holes through a rhino line, but 3 glancing hits will destroy me. I welcome the shift in play to more infantry based skirmishes with flyer support. Given that soon we'll all have access to skyfire units/upgrades (flakstorm missles), which will then reduce the amount of flyers seen in play.

[Tethesis]

I think anything AV 13-14 is now tougher, since its difficult to spam S7-8 shots if you're depending on glancing shots. Otherwise, you'd be depending on Penetrating shots, which unless you get a good roll on the chart, you'd still be having to tear down those Hull Points, and only using your AT weapons. This keeps them still quite tough, but in 5th, you could spend a whole game rolling glancing and penetrating shots and not kill the damn things, now you can be kind of assured the effort will be worth it in the long run.

So anything AV 12 and under will be suffering the most out of glancing shots, but all vehicles have been made less immortal by assuring that if you keep shooting at them, they'll eventually go down, which I think was a necessary change, and I primarily play mech lists.

[small_furry_spider]

I think saying vehicles are softer/harder is an over simplification. I think it is helpful to split them into transports and gun platforms and think about how well they do the roles they are intended for.

Transports have taken a big hit. It is harder to stop them getting there as stunned is less likely, but everyone could buy an upgrade to avoid this if needed, so all this does is makes them a bit cheaper, if this is important to you. Marginal at best. BUT it is easier to kill them on the way there with glancing, and at close range a quick melta to finish them off by taking the last hull point... and if that does not work there is the 3+ to hit assault. Smoke is less good too and you can't get out after moving as much as you used to (only a small hit). The loss of the ability to assault out of them makes them much worse too.

Gun platforms, on the other hand are now better. Either they have rubbish armour (like vypers) so the rules have not really made them much easiler to kill (it is hard to get worse than "likely to die from the first shot"), or much heavier armour (e.g. predators) so they are less vulnerable to multishot glancing weapons and so are not really easier to kill either (ok there is a third class of skimmer gunships, like the Falcon, but the jink save is not a bad trade off for hull points). However, they can now keep shooting no matter what and weapon destroyed does not automatically take out the best one. They can also shoot more guns and move and their blasts are better. Their longer range keeps them out of range of melta and rapid fire plasma. Yes, the will probably die quicker than before if someone puts concentrated firepower into them, but they will be more useful before they do, which seems like a good trade off to me. Most games my Falcons only fired 2-3 times in 5th, even if they now die on turn 3, I probably have had more shots out of them.

[Magelan]

Transports have taken a hit only in the way they are used and in how assaults work out now.  Transports were mainly used before to move, bunker and assist in assaulting.  Now they should be used to get shooty infantry to a jump off point from where they go forward and assault the position on with the transports assistance.  This is encouraged by the move after disembarking rule changes.  Disembark and shoot the snot of of everyone vice disembark and assault the snot out of everyone after you shot them.  There is a difference between heavy and light transports as well, and the open topped rules change the effectiveness of this as well.

At the end of the day transports need to be used differently than they used to be.  I for one am still seeing the Wave Serpents lasting well into my games.  And even if they are glanced to death my transported troops just pile out and continue to the objective on foot.  In a weird twist of the rules, I often prefer it if they are wrecked near the enemy if they are carrying assault troops as I can actually assault the next turn.

Gunplatforms are more reliable now, I will grant you that.  You can pretty much decide how long you think they will last and plan for it better.

[Skankin_Catachan]

I like the new vehicle rules. Last edition you never really had to commit for an objective. Last turn you could just drive 12 inches, disembark, then run. That gives any unit in a transport a range of 15 - 20 inches. This makes even the lowly guardsmen pretty damn fast! In 6th ed. it is a commitment to grab an objective or assault a flank. Once you disembark you probably never want to jump back in due to restrictions of getting back out. This means you actually have to think more about how you utilize your force.

On top of these restrictions, durability of a vehicle has changed. Instead of flying out through the open bouncing lascannons off your smoke launchers, you have to utilize cover and leap frog vehicles to soak up hull point hits. We had it easy last edition when vehicles solved all of our problems. I think the playing field has been evened finally.

Also, you can snap fire out of your transports, snapfire even when you're stunned/shaken, Shoot/move unprovoked from glancing hits (even though you can get wrecked from them hahaha), and flat out further with most vehicle types.

Also, venoms were a very abused vehicle last edition. im happy 6th ed. nerfed that min/max delight.

[Shas'Oink]

Transports also gain the added protection of the unit inside being able to overwatch an enemy unit charging the tank! I'm already thinking of ways that this can be put to good effect with my IG... and it generally involves the use of my flamer equipped "counter attack" units...

[SeekingOne]

Transports also gain the added protection of the unit inside being able to overwatch an enemy unit charging the tank! I'm already thinking of ways that this can be put to good effect with my IG... and it generally involves the use of my flamer equipped "counter attack" units...

This advantage kind of works mostly for cheesy IG chimeras with their ton of fire points. But I doubt that even for chimeras it would ever compensate for being hit on 3+ in melee.

[Lazarus]

My vehicles and that of my opponent's, have not been surviving much of anything so far. Maybe it's just bad luck on both sides, but it is certainly pretty consistent so far.

Snap fire is certainly better that not being able to fire at all, but I've rarely seen it actually hit. Worse yet, is having a blast weapon that you wish you could fire but can't. lol

Hull point stripping has been very effective and most times, targets are picked for elimination. required resources are brought to bear to mathematically eliminate the target. I am however thankfull, that stun lock type lists are not that effective now unless they can spam glancing hits.....in which case they are sometimes more effective than they previously were.