Updates to existing Marine Vehicles

[9x19 Parabellum]

I agree with The Unseen.

 

The misconception that chip damage is the cause for the woe of vehicles is simply incorrect.

 

A lot of them are costed out of play and lack compelling rule support. Armies with vehicles that don't succumb to these pitfalls see plenty of vehicles used to good effect. Note AdMech, Dark Eldar, Orks, etc

 

The only thing I'd add to this is that I think we need to distinguish between types of chip damage:  Plasma and Mortal wounds have been finishing tanks off for the last 3 years.  All those 1-2 wound hits with no AP add up pretty quick.   I'm not sure if you guys consider this "chip" damage (I do), but yes, I agree that it's not lasguns and bolters that are the problem.  That being said it feels bad when your enemy's shooting phase is winding down and you're like "yes, my tank survived with 2 wounds! at least I'll get to do something with it!" and then your enemy meme-fires a bunch of shuriken catapults at it, gets a couple 6's and blows it up.

[Orange Knight]

In fairness a plasma gun could destroy a tank in a single shot back in 6th and 7th editions.

 

The Ironstriders and Raiders are easy to destroy, but their competitive pricing and synergies with the armies in question made them potent choices. It's hard to say why GW was so aggressive in terms of toning down the potency of the Astartes tanks. Maybe it was in part due to the backlash from the fearsome Repulsor and vehicle IH lists of 8th edition.

 

Those lists actually illustrated how fine the margins are between a unit like the Repulsor being broken and overpowered to it being completely useless. A few additional rules that boost durability and a price adjustment can see these units back on the table.

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

I lost count of the number of times my Fire Raptor has been blown out of the sky before it even got to move, let alone shoot at anything.

 

It's to the point that I don't bother bringing any vehicles at all because it's a waste of points. Why would I spend 300+ points on a vehicle that I'm just going to put back in my case before it can do anything?

 

In my experience in 9th edition Space Marine vehicles are just barely this side of completely useless.

 

If I bring 2 tanks in a 2,000 point game they're going to get focus fired off the table before they can even move if I don't get first turn. That ends up putting me at a de facto disadvantage when I have to fight a 2,000 point army with effectively 1,400 points.

 

Flyers really need to be re-done they've never really made them work right. They've either been oppressive or worthless since they've been added to the game. I would prefer it if they went back to the FW fly by rules, so tough to interact with but not always on the table.

 

I really think marine tanks need a T increase, a point drop, and for other weapons to be rebalanced (MM devs in pod are just so brutal for any tank). 

 

 

I agree with The Unseen.

 

The misconception that chip damage is the cause for the woe of vehicles is simply incorrect.

 

A lot of them are costed out of play and lack compelling rule support. Armies with vehicles that don't succumb to these pitfalls see plenty of vehicles used to good effect. Note AdMech, Dark Eldar, Orks, etc

 

The only thing I'd add to this is that I think we need to distinguish between types of chip damage:  Plasma and Mortal wounds have been finishing tanks off for the last 3 years.  All those 1-2 wound hits with no AP add up pretty quick.   I'm not sure if you guys consider this "chip" damage (I do), but yes, I agree that it's not lasguns and bolters that are the problem.  That being said it feels bad when your enemy's shooting phase is winding down and you're like "yes, my tank survived with 2 wounds! at least I'll get to do something with it!" and then your enemy meme-fires a bunch of shuriken catapults at it, gets a couple 6's and blows it up.

 

 

Plasma used to be pretty solid anti-tank it wasn't effective against the front facing but it had good AP and against rear was brutal. Smite I can understand some frustration with but there used to be good anti-vehicle powers that were capable of doing a lot more than smite.

 

I do understand the emersion problems with things like lasguns and boltguns being able to finish off a tank. I just think from a gameplay perspective if you made them immune to small arms you'd either have to compensate with even better anti-tank or restrict them in smaller games. Toning down the 3 + d3 weapons and MM would help alot.

[Lord Raven 19]

Do you think melta being D3+3 at half range instead of D6+2 would help with that?

[Dracos]

Nerfing anti-tank weapons shouldnt be the game design answer to look for though. It’s the job of anti-tank weapons. It’s the “lesser” weapons like auto cannons and plasma that needs a nerf. All vehicles getting -1D would be step on right direction IMO.

I’d add -1 AP counts as 0 AP on all vehicles also. At the very least anything that the strength was half of the vehicle toughness

Edited September 6, 2021 by Dracos

[Rik Lightstar]

I think it could actually be a pretty simple fix for the balance of vehicles and anti-tank weapons.

 

Currently the vehicle Toughness range for Marines is 6/7/8 if that got bumped to 8/9/10 then we'd go to small arms wounding on 6s.

 

Then you increase the Strength on appropriate weapons by 1 or 2 as well, so Autocannons could go to 8, Krak Missiles to 9, Melta to 10, Lascannons to 11, etc.

 

The right weapons are still wounding easily, but Heavy Bolter and Plasma become that much less effective.

 

Rik

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

Do you think melta being D3+3 at half range instead of D6+2 would help with that?

 

I'd drop them to str 7. They wouldn't wound infantry on 2's anymore and would be worse against vehicles. Melta units are so good right now because they're cheap enough that even if you don't face vehicles its easy to get your points back. Learned that the hard way against SoB.

 

Erring anti-tank weapons shouldnt be the game design answer to look for though. It’s the job of anti-tank weapons. It’s the “lesser” weapons like auto cannons and plasma that needs a nerf. All vehicles getting -1D would be step on right direction IMO.

 

I’d add -1 AP counts as 0 AP on all vehicles also. At the very least anything that the strength was half of the vehicle toughness

 

I sort of understand your viewpoint. That said MM have already pushed alot of the "lesser" weapons out of lists, when they were updated they warped the meta (SoB have been top three since the update). That isn't good design, plasma was oppressive in 8th and melta has just taken its spot.  

 

 

[XeonDragon]

My ideas:

 

1. Give vehicles -1 damage
2. Let them ignore the first point of AP (so AP-4 becomes AP-3 etc.)
3. Give them a 4++ or 5++ against non "anti-tank" weapons (see point 6 below)
4. Let troops get out after they move (but not advance and charge), but let troops getting out of assault vehicles move, advance and/or charge as a base ability 
5. What Rik Star said re: toughness and weapon strengths
6. Consider introducing a sub-category of heavy weapon ("Anti-Tank") that are immune from points 1, 2 and 3. Make it a small list. Multi-melta? Check. Combi-melta? nope. Assault and rapid-hire plasma? nope. Heavy plasma cannons etc? Check. Krak missiles? Yes Krak grenades? No. Las cannons? Yes. Assault cannons? No - you get the idea. 

[Captain Idaho]

Here's a good one about melta - give it an across the board points increase.

 

I do like D3+3 damage too.

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

 

My ideas:

 

1. Give vehicles -1 damage
2. Let them ignore the first point of AP (so AP-4 becomes AP-3 etc.)
3. Give them a 4++ or 5++ against non "anti-tank" weapons (see point 6 below)
4. Let troops get out after they move (but not advance and charge), but let troops getting out of assault vehicles move, advance and/or charge as a base ability 
5. What Rik Star said re: toughness and weapon strengths
6. Consider introducing a sub-category of heavy weapon ("Anti-Tank") that are immune from points 1, 2 and 3. Make it a small list. Multi-melta? Check. Combi-melta? nope. Assault and rapid-hire plasma? nope. Heavy plasma cannons etc? Check. Krak missiles? Yes Krak grenades? No. Las cannons? Yes. Assault cannons? No - you get the idea. 

 

 

 

1) agreed

 

2 & 3) I think you'd be better off increasing tanks toughness by 1. You'll get a bigger buff against base weapons with less book keeping. Most of the non "anti-tank" weapons like plasma are going to be highly affected by the -1 damage buff, so I don't think a situational save makes more sense than dropping their ability to wound, alongside the damage reduction. It's just a more elegant solution.

 

4) I think this makes sense for a Land Raider or a Repulsor but I think Impulsors would need to be updated. With their 14" base move, 3" disembark, and the infantry's 6" move it wouldn't be difficult to get charges deep into your enemies deployment zone turn 1. With a more "elite" vehicle I'm fine with that, but I think Impulsors with bladeguard are in a good spot now and shouldn't be buffed. 

 

5 & 6) I really think scaling the anti-tank weapons up with the vehicles toughness increases just maintains the status quo for vehicles.  I can understand buffing some of the underperforming choices but I just don't see the need to make them even better. 

 

 

Here's a good one about melta - give it an across the board points increase.

 

I do like D3+3 damage too.

 

I'd be fine with point increases, I just avoid bringing it up cause it tends to lead to discussions about point decreases not being buffs. I also have to admit, that GW is IMO going back to giving certain armies discounts so I think marine vehicles are in their minds fine. I don't like this direction because I'd like as much of my collection as possible feeling viable.

 

The one thing with 3+d3 damage that I don't like for melta is that the scaling feels weird. I mean I'm assuming it stays d6 damage when your more than half range away. Granted you could make it so that the second shot only occurs when your within half range. 

[XeonDragon]

Agreed. I think one mistake GW made in 9th was lumping so many weapons on the same cost bracket, e.g. combi everything is 10 points. I can't see the extra 6" of range and access to hellfire shells making heavy bolters as good as grav cannons (for example). Nor do I see a maximum range of 24" making plasma guns better than melta ones. That is something they should revisit I think. 

 

Here's a good one about melta - give it an across the board points increase.

I do like D3+3 damage too.

[XeonDragon]

In terms of idea 4, that is a very good point you raise. First-turn deployment zone charges would be whack. I suppose a simple way of dealing with that would be to have a rule that prevented units from disembarking and charging in turn 1, or to go to bigger tables. But yes, an issue for sure.

 

Perhaps instead make charging out of an assault vehicle a stratagem, a bike like smoke screen? So yes, an implusor could do that.... but only one and only once (as stratagem could not be used more than once in turn 1). 

 

 

 

My ideas:

 

1. Give vehicles -1 damage
2. Let them ignore the first point of AP (so AP-4 becomes AP-3 etc.)
3. Give them a 4++ or 5++ against non "anti-tank" weapons (see point 6 below)
4. Let troops get out after they move (but not advance and charge), but let troops getting out of assault vehicles move, advance and/or charge as a base ability 
5. What Rik Star said re: toughness and weapon strengths
6. Consider introducing a sub-category of heavy weapon ("Anti-Tank") that are immune from points 1, 2 and 3. Make it a small list. Multi-melta? Check. Combi-melta? nope. Assault and rapid-hire plasma? nope. Heavy plasma cannons etc? Check. Krak missiles? Yes Krak grenades? No. Las cannons? Yes. Assault cannons? No - you get the idea. 

 

 

 

1) agreed

 

2 & 3) I think you'd be better off increasing tanks toughness by 1. You'll get a bigger buff against base weapons with less book keeping. Most of the non "anti-tank" weapons like plasma are going to be highly affected by the -1 damage buff, so I don't think a situational save makes more sense than dropping their ability to wound, alongside the damage reduction. It's just a more elegant solution.

 

4) I think this makes sense for a Land Raider or a Repulsor but I think Impulsors would need to be updated. With their 14" base move, 3" disembark, and the infantry's 6" move it wouldn't be difficult to get charges deep into your enemies deployment zone turn 1. With a more "elite" vehicle I'm fine with that, but I think Impulsors with bladeguard are in a good spot now and shouldn't be buffed. 

 

5 & 6) I really think scaling the anti-tank weapons up with the vehicles toughness increases just maintains the status quo for vehicles.  I can understand buffing some of the underperforming choices but I just don't see the need to make them even better. 

 

 

Here's a good one about melta - give it an across the board points increase.

I do like D3+3 damage too.

 

I'd be fine with point increases, I just avoid bringing it up cause it tends to lead to discussions about point decreases not being buffs. I also have to admit, that GW is IMO going back to giving certain armies discounts so I think marine vehicles are in their minds fine. I don't like this direction because I'd like as much of my collection as possible feeling viable.

 

The one thing with 3+d3 damage that I don't like for melta is that the scaling feels weird. I mean I'm assuming it stays d6 damage when your more than half range away. Granted you could make it so that the second shot only occurs when your within half range. 

 

[9x19 Parabellum]

OK so I had an interesting thought last night about vehicles, and in particular transports.

 

*IF* the act of disembarking (prior to moving, though) triggered an overwatch event for any unit within 12" of the disembarked unit, subject to all the normal rules for shooting and overwatch.

 

*THEN* you could have a special rule for assault vehicles that they do not allow an overwatch trigger for models that disembark.

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

 

In terms of idea 4, that is a very good point you raise. First-turn deployment zone charges would be whack. I suppose a simple way of dealing with that would be to have a rule that prevented units from disembarking and charging in turn 1, or to go to bigger tables. But yes, an issue for sure.

 

Perhaps instead make charging out of an assault vehicle a stratagem, a bike like smoke screen? So yes, an implusor could do that.... but only one and only once (as stratagem could not be used more than once in turn 1). 

 

 

 

I'd just rename the existing assault vehicle rule on the impulsor to rapid deployment and have it work like it does now. The rule wasn't intended to be the old assault vehicle rule so they should've renamed it in the first place.

 

That said I don't think the old assault vehicle rules would be broken in this edition for several reasons.

 

1)  Land Raiders are slower so that knocks off 4", which is pretty significant your looking at 18-19 inches of movement before charges. So if an opponent has objective on the edge of their deployment they could put a unit within 3" of and you'd still need an 8" charge to get in assuming no terrain is in the way. 

 

2)  The point costs, right now a unit of termies and raider are going to set you back over 400 pts. Spamming that is going to be tough.

 

3)  Their footprint is huge. If you lookup the US open GT terrain layout its going to be really hard to get multiple landraiders into good positions. 

 

I didn't mention repulsors but they're really similar so I think that could be a good buff. Not sure how many points its worth, and to be honest I think increasing both units to T9 and -1 damage are more important for them to see play. So I'd prioritize those changes and then see if they still need buff. 

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Jorin giving great advice !

[tvih]

I lost count of the number of times my Fire Raptor has been blown out of the sky before it even got to move, let alone shoot at anything.

 

It's to the point that I don't bother bringing any vehicles at all because it's a waste of points. Why would I spend 300+ points on a vehicle that I'm just going to put back in my case before it can do anything?

 

In my experience in 9th edition Space Marine vehicles are just barely this side of completely useless.

 

If I bring 2 tanks in a 2,000 point game they're going to get focus fired off the table before they can even move if I don't get first turn. That ends up putting me at a de facto disadvantage when I have to fight a 2,000 point army with effectively 1,400 points.

Yeah...

 

I really don't like the levels of firepower ever since the 8th Ed marine codex. It's just ridiculous. If you deploy any unit in line of sight on turn 1 and the enemy goes first, all you'll ever do with that unit is remove throw some futile saves and remove it from the table. Of course, even LoS matters little in some cases, and it applies to several units at once, too. And yes, vehicles... I was happy with some of the initial news about vehicles in 9th, and indeed there are some good changes... but none of them matter when they're just big pinatas. Can't shoot from out of LoS, or have good invul save (as if!) or at least damage reduction? Don't bother bringing it. How fun.  Like why did I think buying a Repulsor Executioner for example was a good idea, six months or so after the 8th ed Dex? Sigh. Doubly great when a vehicle blows up taking a big chunk of your army with it via mortal wounds (whoever thought vehicle explosions being mortal wounds was a great idea or made sense?).

 

It was nice when I started playing in 6th, your units actually could stay on the table for more than a quick visit before being packed off. I guess it's good in that sense that I'm a slow player, at least they stay there a little bit longer that way...

[TheNewman]

Ironically enough Space Marine vehicles do have access to invuln saves, you just have to bring a psyker and get at least one turn without too much fire so you can get Psychic Fortress up.

 

I've had middling success stacking that with shrugs (however I can get them) and damage reduction (again, however I can get that) but it does feel like a lot of vulnerable moving parts just to get assorted vehicles to where they should be straight out of the box.

 

It does make not playing Dark Angels feel like a significant mistake, and I really don't like that.

[MegaVolt87]

I have a bit of a more radical solution. Meta gun range to 10 in, MM to 14 in. Make them more risky to use relative to their power. Also with plasma, get rid of the strength bump on the overcharge, but retain the extra dmg it grants.  There are many plasma variants now and this would open up use for example the Heavy plasma incinerator and plasma incinerator and break the assault plasma meta. 

[XeonDragon]

Interesting idea about the plasma. I've always felt that rolling a 1 should be a mortal wound on an infantry model, not just outright killing it, then the model can't shoot the gun again. Probably too much record-keeping, but yeah. I like the idea of bumping damage but not strength for plasma on overcharge. 

 

I have a bit of a more radical solution. Meta gun range to 10 in, MM to 14 in. Make them more risky to use relative to their power. Also with plasma, get rid of the strength bump on the overcharge, but retain the extra dmg it grants.  There are many plasma variants now and this would open up use for example the Heavy plasma incinerator and plasma incinerator and break the assault plasma meta. 

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

I have a bit of a more radical solution. Meta gun range to 10 in, MM to 14 in. Make them more risky to use relative to their power. Also with plasma, get rid of the strength bump on the overcharge, but retain the extra dmg it grants.  There are many plasma variants now and this would open up use for example the Heavy plasma incinerator and plasma incinerator and break the assault plasma meta. 

 

I like the range reduction ideal for the MM, not sure if the base melta gun really needs any nerfs though. Another range related solution could be making the second shot conditional based on the range. For example one shot at 24" and two 12" with the bonus damage at 6 inches for melta weapons in general. You could do something similar with the 3 + d3 weapons (if over half range d6).

 

For the plasma I don't know if removing the str bump will have that big of an effect. I think the imbalance between the plasma variants has more to do with their reluctance to charge anything that doesn't end in 0-5 for the different options. When you compare the different options for Hellblasters the assault variant is the best choice overall but it isn't worth 5 points a guy. I think if they were 2-3 points more expensive you'd see the other options pop up a bit.

 

That said in the executioner thread I was breaking down points for vehicles because I don't think they charge for transport capacity (or for that matter dmg -1). One thing that bugs me when you break down points is that vehicles pay 5 extra points per heavy weapon. So I would like to see what happens if tanks across the board get dmg -1, and they drop those surcharges. It may be a really good short term fix.

[MegaVolt87]

 

I have a bit of a more radical solution. Meta gun range to 10 in, MM to 14 in. Make them more risky to use relative to their power. Also with plasma, get rid of the strength bump on the overcharge, but retain the extra dmg it grants.  There are many plasma variants now and this would open up use for example the Heavy plasma incinerator and plasma incinerator and break the assault plasma meta. 

 

I like the range reduction ideal for the MM, not sure if the base melta gun really needs any nerfs though. Another range related solution could be making the second shot conditional based on the range. For example one shot at 24" and two 12" with the bonus damage at 6 inches for melta weapons in general. You could do something similar with the 3 + d3 weapons (if over half range d6).

 

For the plasma I don't know if removing the str bump will have that big of an effect. I think the imbalance between the plasma variants has more to do with their reluctance to charge anything that doesn't end in 0-5 for the different options. When you compare the different options for Hellblasters the assault variant is the best choice overall but it isn't worth 5 points a guy. I think if they were 2-3 points more expensive you'd see the other options pop up a bit.

 

That said in the executioner thread I was breaking down points for vehicles because I don't think they charge for transport capacity (or for that matter dmg -1). One thing that bugs me when you break down points is that vehicles pay 5 extra points per heavy weapon. So I would like to see what happens if tanks across the board get dmg -1, and they drop those surcharges. It may be a really good short term fix.

 

 

I think the range reduction is enough for melta as the table sizes have now been reduces 24-36 inch weapons now have a massive boost as a result. Getting rid of the strength buff on plasma definitely opens up the other variants. As far as I can tell, all the comp lists take the assault variant which is telling. The assault plasma overcharged is just better than the others, while if you want a high strength plasma, a redemptor will give you more mileage. Although I am working on a heavy infantry DIY primaris chapter that will be using the heavy plasma variant, though I have deliberately layered the shooting capability in that list to complement it. Still working on the list. 

[XeonDragon]

It would never get up, but I could see merit in melta being D6 normal range, 2D3 in melta range, possibly with reduced ranges. Max damage is still 6 (like a las cannon now), less range,  better AP, better minimum damage at short range. I also see lots of merit in better points differentiation between weapons. 

 

Speaking of las cannons... they are so damn swingy! I love venerable dreadnoughts, I have mathhammered the crap out of them vs redemptors, and those 2+ BS vs degrading profile actually makes them very comparable on a points per average point of damage inflicted but... las cannons are so damn swingy :( Maybe there is an argument for las cannons to be D3+3 or maybe (not that GW would ever abandon pure D6 design) 2D4 or 1D8? Or maybe just 1D6, but rolls of 1 or 2 count as 3? But then melta become less viable and the cycle continues....  

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

 

 

I have a bit of a more radical solution. Meta gun range to 10 in, MM to 14 in. Make them more risky to use relative to their power. Also with plasma, get rid of the strength bump on the overcharge, but retain the extra dmg it grants.  There are many plasma variants now and this would open up use for example the Heavy plasma incinerator and plasma incinerator and break the assault plasma meta. 

 

I like the range reduction ideal for the MM, not sure if the base melta gun really needs any nerfs though. Another range related solution could be making the second shot conditional based on the range. For example one shot at 24" and two 12" with the bonus damage at 6 inches for melta weapons in general. You could do something similar with the 3 + d3 weapons (if over half range d6).

 

For the plasma I don't know if removing the str bump will have that big of an effect. I think the imbalance between the plasma variants has more to do with their reluctance to charge anything that doesn't end in 0-5 for the different options. When you compare the different options for Hellblasters the assault variant is the best choice overall but it isn't worth 5 points a guy. I think if they were 2-3 points more expensive you'd see the other options pop up a bit.

 

That said in the executioner thread I was breaking down points for vehicles because I don't think they charge for transport capacity (or for that matter dmg -1). One thing that bugs me when you break down points is that vehicles pay 5 extra points per heavy weapon. So I would like to see what happens if tanks across the board get dmg -1, and they drop those surcharges. It may be a really good short term fix.

 

 

I think the range reduction is enough for melta as the table sizes have now been reduces 24-36 inch weapons now have a massive boost as a result. Getting rid of the strength buff on plasma definitely opens up the other variants. As far as I can tell, all the comp lists take the assault variant which is telling. The assault plasma overcharged is just better than the others, while if you want a high strength plasma, a redemptor will give you more mileage. Although I am working on a heavy infantry DIY primaris chapter that will be using the heavy plasma variant, though I have deliberately layered the shooting capability in that list to complement it. Still working on the list. 

 

 

I don't think taking the strength bump away would affect the popularity of the different plasma options. Most people aren't taking the assault variant for anti-tank (we have better options), so the difference between str 6-7 rarely matters. For the rapid fire version though it would hurt because str 8 is a big deal (wound t4 on 2's, and t7 on 3's). With the heavy option starting at 8 it wouldn't notice the change much. That's why I think points are better solution if your trying to even out plasma, because the volume of fire that the assault version gets make it really difficult to balance against the other options. 

[Orange Knight]

They shouldn't be nerfing any existing weapons, especially considering that other factions have firepower just as deadly. Look at Dark Eldar as an example.

 

Keep in mind that Astartes aren't a faction that rolls over all others at this point, they are not the top tier threat.

 

Vehicles are badly balanced internally in the codex, but that fact doesn't hold true across all the other factions. Vehicles are very strong in Dark Eldar and AdMech factions, as an example.

 

Games Workshop should start by significantly dropping the cost for the various tanks, and then move on to supporting them with better rules and stratagems in future codex updates/revisions.

[Djangomatic82]

GW should really just let Tanks be able to TANK damage. SM vehicles don't need complete rewrites to their datasheets, increasing rules bloat and book keeping. Just increase their wound count across the board. Rhino variants at 20 wounds, Predator variants at 22 wounds, land speeders at 12 wounds, Storm Ravens at 28 wounds, Land Raiders at 32 wounds.

easy, problem solved in an errata.