6th Ed Content Rumours

[helvexis]

this is the problem i have if a rhino is destroyed by 3 shaken/stunned what about a raider or venom ... or even scout sentinals and war walkers which are considerably less armored how many hull points would they have? I play dark eldar and having my transports killed by a glance is already a common experience so i cant say i like the idea of it being even easier to glance me to death ...

[DrBored]

this is the problem i have if a rhino is destroyed by 3 shaken/stunned what about a raider or venom ... or even scout sentinals and war walkers which are considerably less armored how many hull points would they have? I play dark eldar and having my transports killed by a glance is already a common experience so i cant say i like the idea of it being even easier to glance me to death ...

The unfortunate thing is that in the current game of 5th edition, vehicles reign supreme. That's not necessarily a good thing, since it actually limits the amount of army builds that are competitive. Nerf vehicles a bit, and suddenly you can invest those points on more troops or elites instead of on more vehicles. It makes things like the Talos or Cronos more viable, and diversifies your army.

All in all, I'm even willing to nerf my Raiders and Rhinos if it means fewer mech'd up armies to worry about. Especially razorspam and IG leafblower, and anything that gives me more chances to down a Stormraven is something I'll jump on.

[Father]

@DrBored: the reality is that if the missions still call for mobile forces to seize objectives, people will still have to mech up unless they have other mobility options (jump BA, bike SM). I can see some reduction of mech where firesupport is concerned, but I will be surprised if a significant reduction in transports occurs.

[TheCastigator]

It makes things like the Talos or Cronos more viable, and diversifies your army.

Speaking of, I hope they fix monstrous creatures, as they have become a total afterthought in 5th edition. Almost universally overcosted, and made irreverent by the sheer number of anti tank weapons. I don't think they need a huge fix, aside form a point reduction, perhaps always allowing them to have an armor save regardless of AP. I would like to see nids back in a big way, not to mention, the Talos, wraithlord, avatar, etc.

[Bushido]

The unfortunate thing is that in the current game of 5th edition, vehicles reign supreme.

Uh, I'm going to go ahead and disagree there. There are plenty of viable armies that aren't completely or at all built around vehicles. Especially Rhinos for that matter.

I mean Chimera are great, but Rhinos are practically rolling kill points at every tournament I've played between now and this time last year.

[Kawauso]

MCs being a little more resilient would be nice - I don't think always getting an armour save is the answer, though. Imagine having no way of getting through a Dreadknight's 2+...not fun.

I think some sort of minor invul. save granted by MC status might not be bad, perhaps. A universal 5++, maybe?

Something to make them a bit tougher, though. They have more vulnerabilities than vehicles with none of the advantages - they can't move as fast (generally), are just as hard to hide and they're nowhere near as durable.

[MajorWesJanson]

The unfortunate thing is that in the current game of 5th edition, vehicles reign supreme. That's not necessarily a good thing, since it actually limits the amount of army builds that are competitive. Nerf vehicles a bit, and suddenly you can invest those points on more troops or elites instead of on more vehicles. It makes things like the Talos or Cronos more viable, and diversifies your army.

The problem people seem to have isnot vehicles, but Mech Infantry. Why puinish tanks when a mere glancing hit can mean they are useless for an entire turn? It would be fairly easy to rebalance vehicles as follows:

Modify the damage table-
0 or less no result.
1 Shaken
2 Stunned
3 Weapon destroyed or d6 automatic wounds to passengers, saves allowed, shooters choice. If no passengers aboard or weapons left, becomes immobilized
4. Immobilized. If already immobilized, becomes wrecked
5. Wrecked, passengers disembark and make pinning test
6 Explodes. D6 automatic wounds to passengers, saves allowed, pinning test.

Allow vehicles to split fire, at least with defensive weapons.
Shooting from fireports in a moving or open vehicle no longer limited by speed, but -1 BSfor each 6 inches travelled.
Psychic powers and defenses which do not cause wounds or models to be removed from play may affect passengers inside vehicles.
Passengers inside vehicles automatically count as passing leadership tests.

[Emerald Rose Widow]

MCs being a little more resilient would be nice - I don't think always getting an armour save is the answer, though. Imagine having no way of getting through a Dreadknight's 2+...not fun.

I think some sort of minor invul. save granted by MC status might not be bad, perhaps. A universal 5++, maybe?

Something to make them a bit tougher, though. They have the same more vulnerabilities than vehicles with none of the advantages - they can't move as fast (generally), are just as hard to hide and they're nowhere near as durable.

I have thought the same thing, just a minor invuln, especially with the commonality of force weapons in the modern meta. Just being able to make a good use of my MC's again would be nice, hehe.

[DrLove42]

I agree vis a vis MC.

Its always bugged me....a Wraithlord one of the most prized and revered treasures of an Eldar craftworld has no type of shielding. And being T8, pretty much everything that can reliably hurt it, ignores its 3+ save.

As for vehicle damage tables, I hope they don't go back to having 2 seperate. Having 1 makes things SO much easier

For fire points I liked the "leaked" of only ebing able to fire 6-12" out of a fire position.

My biggest bugbear is Chimeras. The fluff even says they can fire 2 out of the top, and then 6 guys shooting from the lasguns built into the hull. And yet somehow you can shoot as many melta guns out as you want

[Wildcard]

About the hullpoints:

I was thinking that at what logic was rhino going to have 3. I mean, is it just aggreed among the dev team that "Okay lads, 3 for rhino it is", or do they have generated a pattern which to follow (i mean, there are alot of vehicles in 40k.

Then first i came to this conclusion:

-1 hullpoint per armor value above 10: Rhino having 11/11/10 would be giving it one from the front and two from the sides.
-It also would make sense (although not sure how balanced) that a 14/14/14 landraider would have total of 12 hullpoints making it truly a way more durable..

But then i realised that what about 10/10/10 open toppeds? they would be blown out of the table by any glancing / penetrating shot.

Also, something like giving +1 hullpoint for unit types like "Tank" or "Heavy" or whatever wouldn't help in those cases, since most of the time 10/10/10's are the lightest vehicles anyway.

Then i thought it again and came to this conclusion:
- Same as above: 1 point for each facing above 10
- If no facing is above 10, then vehicle has 1 hullpoint (hard to justify 2, unless "tank" would give additional 1, because chimera has 12/10/10 giving it only 2 points, and ill be damned if ork trukks can take the same amount of punishment than chimeras )

Your thoughts?