How To Improve Space Marine Tanks

[Captain Idaho]

Lack of Invulnerable saves doesn't bother me. Target saturation would really help vehicles - if you have 6 or so on the table your opponent will be hard pressed to deal with all of it quickly.

 

To me, that's the problem. Why take a Gladiator at 200pts + cost when you could cheaper infantry and then something else? You can't get the saturation to make a T8 vehicle shine.

 

It's like Astra Militarum tanks. 1 Leman Russ isn't very scary. 5 of them plus a few Hellhounds and Chimeras is a real pain!

 

So I definitely agree with a 30pts decrease of all tanks in Marine armies to encourage folk to take them. That includes transports.

[Ishagu]

30 points is nothing though. That's not even 2 extra Intercessors or a single Thunderhammer lol Edited February 21, 2021 by Ishagu

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

I think dropping all marines tank point costs by a percentage would make more sense, than just a set point value. A 20% drop would make gladiators, and predators alot better while not taking us back to 5th edition razor spam like a forty to fifty point drop on every tank would.

[Bulwyf]

Give them 5++ across the board. It is very obvious in the games I've played in 9th no matter the army that with damage output so high that the only chance to live for anything is an invuln save.

[SkimaskMohawk]

Invul is kind of dumb. It's incredibly unthematic for marine vehicles who traditionally sported the highest armour value in the game on their heavy tanks (land raiders and up). If you want durability, make them toughness 9 for the stuff that's currently 8 and either give them a 2+ or ignore -1 rend.

[solarisqc]

All tank are overprice and to easy to destroy. They need to do a completed overhaul of the vehicule rules but i don't think it's for this edition. They need to redo  all codex first and level the powel level of each armies.

 

I don't think a point decrease is the solution, we don't want more tank on the table, we need tank to be more durable. My biggest problem with tank now is thay make them killable by everything. In RL, you can shot 1 million 7.62 round at a TANK and you will only scratch the paint on it. The game need more rules/mechanic for vehicule for interaction with the different type of vehicule.

 

I don't included dreadnought because they are working now, mainly because of duty eternal.

 

For SM

Light/exposed crew: Land speeder, invader ATV, Invictor tactical warsuit, Firestrike servo-Turrets

Medium/open top/aircraft: Land speeder storm, Drop pod, Rhino, Razorback, Whirlwind, Impulsor, StormHawk, Stormtalon

Battle tank, Heavy aircraft: Predator, Vindicator, Hunter, Stalker, Gladiator, Stormraven

Heavy tank: Land raider, Repulsor, Executioner, Hammerfall bunker

Titanic: Thunderhawk, Stormbird

 

The toughness and wound mechanic alone is not working anymore with thing like BA that can wound a Land raider or knight on 4+ with a powersword on the charge. Or a bataillon of Guard that can kill a knight with lasgun.

 

Something interesting will be a special FNP save for vehicule base on it's class and add an ANTI TANK rules on some weapon to remove this special save (Melta, lance, titanic weapon)

Light/exposed crew: no save

Medium/open top/aircraft: 6+

Battle tank, Heavy aircraft: 5+

Heavy tank: 4+

Titanic: 3+

[Alcyon]

I think we're going round in circles a bit but I agree reducing points isn't necessarily the best solution, because I don't want to see fleets of Space Marine tanks, I'd just like to see 1-2 per army. And I also don't want to see ostensibly-heavily-armoured tanks skirting around terrain in DZs to avoid melta instead of plunging forward towards the enemy, guns blazing.

 

They do need a substantial re-work in order to find a home this edition; they need a larger table size to take advantage of their mobility, an ability to breach terrain as long as they don't end their move within it, and a way to meaningfully tank shock infantry, more toughness, a better return on their firepower for points...

 

In the end though I've never felt Space Marine battle tanks were all that fluffy. Land Raiders, Rhinos, sure, but Predators and Gladiators with fully-armoured marines inside a fully-armoured tank? Waste of a superhuman if you ask me.

[SkimaskMohawk]

I will say that the table size is purely driven by the big tournament organizers...who also as retailers for their branded battle mats. The day 1 declaration that all the big north American events would be on the smallest board size is what created 9ths particular dynamic; gw said the new sized board was simply the minimum, not the recommended size.

 

8th+ definitely missed the mark on vehicles; they don't feel like vehicles and they've never been able to balance them correctly. It's either been garbage or some aspects being far too good like iron hands or alaitoc planes.

[Captain Idaho]

30 points is nothing though. That's not even 2 extra Intercessors or a single Thunderhammer lol

30pts is massive. Across a whole army it's worth a lot of points.

[Ishagu]

 

 

30 points is nothing though. That's not even 2 extra Intercessors or a single Thunderhammer lol

30pts is massive. Across a whole army it's worth a lot of points.

Not in this case at all. Marine armies only have one or two tanks in a list at most. Most have none. My lists would drop between 0 and 60 points.

 

The idea is to make them compelling to the point where I'm willing to drop some of the excellent infantry and take a Gladiator instead.

 

Aggressively costed units are definitely more usable. The Gladiators are far off the mark. Either that or a complete overhaul of rules with some amazing defensive/mobility/utility bonus.

 

Dropping a Gladiator tank by 30 points does not make me consider it ahead of other options. 50 is the minimum before it starts to turn heads, and it still won't be enough to be a competitive option.

 

As for the Gladiator - It's a new kit, and a great looking one at that. People WANT to use it, they WANT to make it work. GW have missed the mark, and a holdover from Iron Hands in 8th edition has made them far, far too conservative with the rules/cost of this unit.

Edited February 22, 2021 by Ishagu

[Jings]

As usual, I think looking to the real-world would make everything better and balance it out.

 

I would do all of the following for vehicles:

 

1. Give every vehicle in the game a new rule called "Weak point". The weak point would be defined as the exact center of the rear-most part of the vehicle. If the attacking unit can see the "Weak point", they Toughness and Armor Save is reduced by 1. 

 

2. Change the main gun(s) on vehicles from "heavy" to "ordnance".  Ordnance weapons would get the following universal rules:

-minimum weapon range (something like around 12")

-never is allowed to fire overwatch

-can fire at any target it wants, despite being in combat (obeying the minimum weapon ranges, as above).

 

3. All non-supersonic vehicles with 10+ wounds, and/or Titanic vehicles are always +1 to be shot.  They are big targets, they should be easy to lock-onto and hit.

 

4. Give vehicles the ability to move through any kind of terrain, however, they suffer 1 damage any time they move over or through anything that would be "difficult" for them.

 

5. ***CRAZY-ASS THOUGHT***  Maybe have vehicles work something like Armada...where instead of move and shoot, they have to skip the move phase.  They shoot in the shoot phase, and then they are allowed to move in the Charge Phase.

 

All of these would make vehicles completely unplayable. I'd like -1 to saves if shot from behind, but that's just because I miss the old vehicle side rules. 

 

Vehicles need a wider distribution of invuls, damage reductions and access to repairs more than anything else. 

[Bulwyf]

Invul is kind of dumb. It's incredibly unthematic for marine vehicles who traditionally sported the highest armour value in the game on their heavy tanks (land raiders and up). If you want durability, make them toughness 9 for the stuff that's currently 8 and either give them a 2+ or ignore -1 rend.

 

Well, no, it isn't "kind of dumb". It is the only thing in the current rules to give a unit a chance to stay on the table for more than one round of shooting. It isn't "unthematic" for marine vehicles to have an invulnerable save. The high armor value means diddly poo when you have gobs of weapons that match or exceed the highest Toughness stat in the game. Under the current rules the only defense worth having is invulnerable saves and the only way to make a tank feel like, well, a TANK is to give them an invuln save.

[Ishagu]

I think simple adjustments to cost can fix the problems for Marine vehicles.

 

They are simply far too expensive.

 

Some of the suggestions for more thematic rules go against the streamlined nature of 40k 9th edition.

Edited February 22, 2021 by Ishagu

[Captain Idaho]

Going back to earlier comments in this topic, I think the Keyword system should have been utilised more.

 

Tank Keyword

 

If a ranged weapon hits a unit with this keyword and doesn't have the anti-tank Keyword, it counts as zero AP.

 

That would have helped somewhat. Though the problem is melta right now, but then that could be alleviated by horde units coming back when Orks and Tyranids get Codex books. Not sure.

 

Points decreases by about 30pts per tank in the Marine Codex would help.

[Karhedron]

Give them 5++ across the board. It is very obvious in the games I've played in 9th no matter the army that with damage output so high that the only chance to live for anything is an invuln save.

The problem with that is that straight away you nerf melta which pays for its AP-4. It shifts the meta in favour of weapons with higher ROF and AP-2.

 

I am not saying Invulnerable saves on the whole are bad, but if you apply them broadly to an entire category of units, you will end up skewing the meta. The law of unintended consequences also applies.

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

I'm not really sure what the best way to improve tanks durabitly wise, the game is so lethal now that if they get substantially tougher it may tip the scale far enough to the other direction where we're justifying why to run infantry.

 

Going back to earlier comments in this topic, I think the Keyword system should have been utilised more.

 

Tank Keyword

 

If a ranged weapon hits a unit with this keyword and doesn't have the anti-tank Keyword, it counts as zero AP.

 

That would have helped somewhat. Though the problem is melta right now, but then that could be alleviated by horde units coming back when Orks and Tyranids get Codex books. Not sure.

 

Points decreases by about 30pts per tank in the Marine Codex would help.

I really think a 20% discount would make more sense, predators would get that 30 point discount and be pretty good, and the more expensive options like land raiders, repulsors, and gladiators might see play with more substantial drops. Transports would only go down about 20 but I think with more tanks on the board they'd feel tougher. Edited February 22, 2021 by Jorin Helm-splitter

[Ishagu]

If a Gladiator tank cost 50 points it would be the best unit in the game and everyone would run 3 of them.

 

It's about finding an appropriate cost. I don't ever want to see a return of facings or some different weapon interaction. The whole point of 9th is to have easy rules that free up the Tactical play for achieving the mission itself.

[SkimaskMohawk]

Yea except that was the point of 8th as well, and both failed in that regard. Every army has battleforged rules, mono-faction rules, subfaction rules, warlord traits and then combinations of unit rules, weapon rules and stratagems.

 

There's more rules combinations and interactions than there was in 5th and early 6th, which were the closest to single foc and mono faction to what 9ths going for. Having armour facings and having alternate weapon charts isn't hard; titanicus functions extremely well and has both those systems. It's only bad players who ever had a problem with facings; misposition and then complain about how they're getting shot or are shooting.

 

 

But anyways, I'm actually going to say raiders to toughness 10; gladiators, repulsors, vindicators and whatever else are currently 8 to 9.

Edited February 22, 2021 by SkimaskMohawk

[USNCenturion]

I think vehicles need a return to the old rules; vehicles today are treated like biological monsters, and that’s not at all what they are obviously. We’re paying for the sins from several editions ago where people complained not enough things hurt them reliably. I’d argue the whole point of a combat vehicle is to avoid damage that would affect biological targets, so why the hell should a bolter or lasgun ping wounds off a tank??

 

The way points and gun damage are now, I think they afford to make vehicles more survivable and durable.

[Ishagu]

I think vehicles need a return to the old rules; vehicles today are treated like biological monsters, and that’s not at all what they are obviously. We’re paying for the sins from several editions ago where people complained not enough things hurt them reliably. I’d argue the whole point of a combat vehicle is to avoid damage that would affect biological targets, so why the hell should a bolter or lasgun ping wounds off a tank??

 

The way points and gun damage are now, I think they afford to make vehicles more survivable and durable.

Are you talking about 5th?

They were trash in 6th and 7th and then far better in 8th and 9th.

 

The Marine tanks are simply priced out of being useful. If wasn't long ago that Custodes grav-tanks were the best units on the table.

 

Give them back the Fly keyword and drop the cost.

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

I don't think bringing back facings and AV will happen anytime soon. It would pretty much require a new edition when we're only had 3 codex releases into the new one.

 

So in the existing framework it really comes down to increasing durability vs. updating points. I think balancing by points makes more sense because they already released our codex and have a lot more fractions that desperately need help. My preference would be for them to lower points on most vehicles and slightly increase the cost of melta. If they want to keep melta at the same level than I think a 20% percent discount on marine tanks is in order.

[Lord Raven 19]

I would just increase toughness and saves to be appropriate for the cost. 

[Triszin]

I would just increase toughness and saves to be appropriate for the cost.

Yep.

 

Would need to adjust quiet a few things at once but.

 

Gladiators t10, repulsors t12, land raiders t14

 

Would need to go across the board though.

Baneblades to like t14-16

[SkimaskMohawk]

Yea Im honestly surprised they haven't gone all out on the stat changes. They removed the cap on stats at 10 and changed the whole wounding and ap system, but kept everything as close as they could to previous edition equivalents.

 

It's taken 3 years to address some of the defensive deficiencies by making marines have more wounds and -1 damage on dreads, but it's really very few changes to go with a drastic shakeup in mechanics. Vehicles of course went from needing a 4 to 5 from lascannons for the heavier ones to 3s.

Edited February 22, 2021 by SkimaskMohawk

[Captain Idaho]

I've felt GW's restriction to 1-10 on stats was too conservative. If a Marine had a Toughness of 6, Ork 5, Human 3 etc, then a tank could have been 12 etc and worked well.

 

Remember weapons could have scaled appropriately. Lascannons could have been Strength 13, Bolters S6 etc.

 

Oh well, that is a big change and a bridge too far right now.