Vehicles

[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

[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.