Blood Angels tanks useless in the 6th?

[Bob821]

4hp would be good and IWND. Would fit really well. I think if you made a dreadnought as tough as a riptide or wraithknight you would have to take the points that would go with it. But if you do that, then you are not that far away from an imp knight.

- - - Updated - - -



Id play against your dreads with 4hp and iwnd if they cost you 25 points more. Start the play testing there?

I dont think they need the cost increase if you only adding 1HP and it will not die. The problem is they already dont work and are expensive. Give them 4HP and IWND and leave the pts at 105 (for the basic one) or....

Riptide stats with dreadnought weapons. At around 140 - 160 pts. I know this is cheaper than a ridptide but riptides bounce around like spring lamps while dreads need to spend extra on drop pods or Storm Ravens to get around quick.

What do you think Tauboss? Fancy facing some Blood Angel MC's?

[Blood Shadow]

Vehicles in general are overcosted for the ease with which you can remove them with glancing shots, particularly in assault.

Part of why my gaming group uses a default armor save for vehicles that suffer glancing hits as a result of Armor Penetration rolls.

AP 1 no save
AP 2 6+
AP 3 5+
AP 4 4+
AP 5 3+
AP 6 2+
AP - 2+
.

I find this idea really interesting, can I ask why your gaming group didn't give an armour save instead so:

AV14 2+
AV13 3+
AV12 4+
AV11 5+
AV10 6+

Then use the AP rules as standard? Was wondering if you tried this first as it seems similar to the standard rules set?

I think it would boost AV14 a bit too much, then again it will rarely get it's save since most stuff penetrating AV14 is AP1 or 2 (manticores an exception). This way you don't get AV10 getting a 2+ save against things like the Puisher cannon or multi lasers....though it should probably see a reduction in HPs...

Perhaps just have this rule for Walkers?

[Gleipnir]

I find this idea really interesting, can I ask why your gaming group didn't give an armour save instead so:

AV14 2+
AV13 3+
AV12 4+
AV11 5+
AV10 6+

Then use the AP rules as standard? Was wondering if you tried this first as it seems similar to the standard rules set?

I think it would boost AV14 a bit too much, then again it will rarely get it's save since most stuff penetrating AV14 is AP1 or 2 (manticores an exception). This way you don't get AV10 getting a 2+ save against things like the Puisher cannon or multi lasers....though it should probably see a reduction in HPs...

Perhaps just have this rule for Walkers?

Reason we didn't base the save off armor values was because the AV is a not limited to 10-14(some attacks reduce AV, and some buildings have AV 15) but glancing hits and AP values are static values that really don't change. Also since high AP weapons are the best indicator of what would eliminate or make an armor save more difficult that seemed to be the better value to base the saves off of. AV is also directly opposed by a weapons strength rating.

We originally tried applying it to all glancing hits but did not like how that made effects like Gets Hot, Haywire, or Gauss weapons saveable, which based on how those glancing attacks is inflicting hull damage, we decided on a system that only applied to armor penetration rolls.

Wave Serpents shields were an interesting case under the changes we made since they made all Penetrating hits into glancing hits on an Armor penetration roll, but again since most Anti Vehicle weapons carry and AP of 1 or 2 those saves are usually less effective than the Wave Serpents available cover saves.

Really the biggest factors became no more easy small arms fire/close combat weapon kills of AV10 Skimmers, Transports and Flyers, plus Krak grenades, EMP grenades and Melta bombs became a more worthwhile investment for assaulting vehicles. And made AV 12 Walkers less of a joke in Assault, Though still easy enough to kill if you investing in gear like Power Fists and Melta Bombs, which really isn't unreasonable.

[Dave Mcturk]

that looks like an interesting idea; we went down a slightly different route and made big changes to vehicles in close combat - though for similar reasons; walkers obviously remained as is; but we increased vehicle 'nominal weapon skill' depending on speed:
stationary > as per brb ws 3
moved up to 12" > ws 4
moved over 12" > ws 5

this prevents 'mobs' of ST4 attackers charging on foot at / onto a 10 ton vehicle moving in excess of 60mph!

we also took the brave step of making attackers use the facing of the vehicle unless it was immobilised! ; as per the above post this means troops attacking vehicles really need a 'proper' anti-tank weapon - haywire/melta /fist.

we also give vehicles any IV or jink save they may have; i mean it works against a ST10 60" range AP1 weapon, but not an ork headbutt!

[Ang56]

You could just remove destroyed results from the dmg table, replace with "takes 2 hull points" if it would have been destroyed. Make them cut through the hull points. While not making it possible for them to make a string of saves and be miraculously indestructable.

Light vehicles could still be 1 shot if lucky, something with 3+ hp's would require 2-3 damaging hits.

Seems simpler adds a little durability, prevents the heavy tank 1 shot. No new tables or saving throw mechanics.

- - - Updated - - -

I just think that in theory a saving throw is fine, but with the randomness of luck, you'll have that game where a vehicle makes all its saves and is much stronger then it should be.

Small changes, without adding a mechanic tend to be less damaging to gameplay.