Are vehicles to good?

[dmcgee1]

Yes, the vehicle does have more options, hence it's PC.  I don't see the problem, there.  Even if the turning radius is 360º, they are still only allowed one turn per AC, unlike troops (which allowed to turn  as many times as they like in a given AC).  I have seen many players "sidestep," or other illegal manuevers, and have politely reminded them that they need to follow the rules.  When a vehicle can only make one turn in a constricted area, one of two things happens - they get slowed down because they have to exchange forward speed for manueverability, or they find themselves out of position as they attempt to use all their MV value.

Again, I think we are, really, just discussing play styles here.  I still believe that there is, currently, nothing wrong with the way vehicles work, in this game.

[Pietia]

Yes, the vehicle does have more options, hence it's PC. 

A vehicle costs roughly 10-11 points more than comparable (in terms of weapons, SAs, RC, wounds, armor etc) infantry unit (autocannon-armed meka vs Viktor). That's not much at that PC-cost level, especially if you consider such bonuses like "standing-still bonus" or that "fire-on-the-move" thing... Hell... i'd gladly pay 11 (even 15) points to upgrade some of my Dark Legion troops to get those options (even if I had to restrict them to 1 turn per action....)

Even if the turning radius is 360º, they are still only allowed one turn per AC, unlike troops (which allowed to turn  as many times as they like in a given AC).

Yep. But vehicles also have options unavailable to soldiers. While a soldier has to maneuver around a 1.5 inch wall, an Orca may step over it (even though the model is no taller than the wall). A Great Grey may simply fly over it, with no need to worry about terrain... Not what I'd call reduced maneuverability. And in anything but a really messy terrain, 1 turn per action is enough, if you plan your actions well.

[dmcgee1]

I will no longer try to dissuade you.  Evidently, we have, each, our opinions and we stand by them.  On to other discussions...

[Galen]

    I hope people don't think I'm beating a dead horse, but I happened on the discussion a little late.   I've read that all vehicles get +3RC for standing still due to the stablility of the firing platform.
    How does this relate/compare to MMG teams and other associated armament?  It seems that MHMG like the HMG-85T or the Schwerwaffe are built to provide a stable firing platform for a MMG (an thats about it.)
    Are these weapons that much less stable than one mounted on a Great Grey or Battlewalker, both of which are built as much for movement as for shooting?
    Do you all think that the points difference between the Necromower at 54pt and the ducal militia HMG team at 43pt is enough to take into account the increased survivability/mobility/accuracy of the Necromower?

Don't know how I feel about it all, but would like to hear some opinions.  Based on the army lists I have seen posted people only take associated armament when a vehicle mounted weapon is unavailable.

[masherking]

I've played many mini games and vehicles in warzone work just fine.
I found that people would look at stats in the book and say "OH MY GOD thats crazy broken!!". and never see it played on table, but once they do its like "uh that wasnt to bad".
The great thing about this game is everything is kill'able, Tough as nails sure but at the end of day kill'able. I know because I have a 8 man cartel grunt squad thats gone and killed all kinds of crazy huge vehicles and monstes and I'm NOT crazy lucky with the dice. 

-steve

 

[dmcgee1]

Amen, brutha'

[Enker]

With the discussion coming to an end I have closed the voting.
2/3 think that the vehicle are well balanced compared to other troops
1/3 think that the vehicles are to good for their point cost.
Nobody could convice the other of his oppinion.
All in all vehciles seems to be not "broken" at least.

[behemoth]

Aww... I missed the poll!

Now make a poll about how Medics perform and is it worthwhile taking Medics as opposed to taking some other kind of specialist.


*INCOMING!*
*ducks*


==============
There is one specific thing "broken" with one particular vehicle IMO - and that is the Comm Officer Purple Shark. I've yet to understand the logic how calling Fire Missions high-up in the air (like, say, flying in height-band of 6 inches having visibility far superior than on the ground) is harder than calling them on the ground (as in if you're flying up in 6 inches you can call the fire mission only 10 inches away even when you most definately have a broader view of the battlefield) . Distances are calculated by adding the vertical + horizontal distance and Fire Missions can only be called up to 16 inches away. ... Now back to the regular programming.

[PFC joe]

The only way to make the Purple Shark Commo Spec work is to drop him off somewhere way in advance of the forces and have him Form Fireteam in an advantagious position, ie a good vantage point or very highly protected area.  That way he gains the ability to call it in while the enemy forces are still somewhat clustered and has a much decreased chance of deviating back onto foward friendlies.

-PFC joe

[behemoth]

Yup. I know that.
It's pretty shame, though, that it can't be used effectively on board the vehicle where the model actually can see more than on the ground.

Kind of makes the Purple Shark only a transport platform instead of a mobile fire-control platform. Shame really.


Edited for the inevitable typos ... no matter how small a post you make there's always at least one typo in there. Doesn't much help that my cat decided that she wants attention RIGHT NOW and is crawling all over the keyboard.

[WarlordtheFT]

    I hope people don't think I'm beating a dead horse, but I happened on the discussion a little late.   I've read that all vehicles get +3RC for standing still due to the stablility of the firing platform.
    How does this relate/compare to MMG teams and other associated armament?  It seems that MHMG like the HMG-85T or the Schwerwaffe are built to provide a stable firing platform for a MMG (an thats about it.)
    Are these weapons that much less stable than one mounted on a Great Grey or Battlewalker, both of which are built as much for movement as for shooting?
    Do you all think that the points difference between the Necromower at 54pt and the ducal militia HMG team at 43pt is enough to take into account the increased survivability/mobility/accuracy of the Necromower?

Don't know how I feel about it all, but would like to hear some opinions.  Based on the army lists I have seen posted people only take associated armament when a vehicle mounted weapon is unavailable.

Keep in mind that the associated armament has some advantages that a vehicle would not. Mostly in the form of being able to better utilize cover.  However, I think that most players would prefer to have the mobility.

[chribu]

Keep in mind that the associated armament has some advantages that a vehicle would not. Mostly in the form of being able to better utilize cover.  However, I think that most players would prefer to have the mobility.

does the HMG-85T provide cover to the gunner behind it?

[dmcgee1]

Keep in mind that the associated armament has some advantages that a vehicle would not. Mostly in the form of being able to better utilize cover.  However, I think that most players would prefer to have the mobility.

does the HMG-85T provide cover to the gunner behind it?

No

[Enker]

For all who think, that vehicles are to good.
Last game we changed a rule.
Vehicles get no +3 to RC when standing.
They get -3RC when they are moving and shooting in one action.
For us this seemes to be fair and it worked well.
So vehicles are still good and have many tactical options, but
are not the superior killing machine. 

[dmcgee1]

For all who think, that vehicles are to good.
Last game we changed a rule.
Vehicles get no +3 to RC when standing.
They get -3RC when they are moving and shooting in one action.
For us this seemes to be fair and it worked well.
So vehicles are still good and have many tactical options, but
are not the superior killing machine. 

So, basically, you nuetered vehicles.  Why not just give all models that spend at least one of their AC's moving a -3 to their RC?  I am a bit confused as to why a vehicle cannot, by your reckoning, be a stable weapons platform for it's crew.