Vehicle discussion (Venoms, Raiders, Ravagers, Flyers)

in 6. Ed. glancing vehicles to wreck is a viable option against our AV10-vehicles. How should we counter that?

I think, I will keep my Blaster-Warrior-Venom-Squads a little bit behind to fire my SC every turn. Raiders will rush my Wyches or Warrior-Squads forward to get into firing range, then go back to shoot their disintegrators at my opponent.

Ravagers will stay in the back as usual. I am not use if I still need a FF - moving 6" should be no problem



But what about our Fighters and bombers? How could we use them?

I will just blissfully continue using vehicles as I have always used them, ignoring the "threat" posed by hull points. Usually when an AV10 open topped get hit by anything that can hurt them they are gone. Only thing I would be vary of is to put them inside rapid fire range of S4 weapons, but thats something I avoided doing in 5th as well.

So if anything our vehicles just became better because they are so fragile to begin with compared to everything else.

B.

Yeah, our vehicles were made out of paper to begin with, so hull points is not as big deal as it is to Landraiders and the like. I dodn't think much really changes in the shooting department for our vehicles (with assault, we can now turboboost further but only assault after 6 inch movement). Flickerfields are no longer mandatory as getting 5+ cover is so easy, the exception being fliers where they are still very much mandatory (flier only get a 5+ save cover if they evade shots, forcing them to fire at bs1 next turn). We'll definetly be running some flier to counter enemy fliers. They're pretty good anyway, being hit on 6+ and then having 5++ saves without having to evade. The downside is that they can only pivot 90 degrees and must move atleast 18'', and that they must start in reserve. For the one mission where HS units can score, that can be problematic as they'll just go zooming past objectives, not to mention having them in reserve limits our long range aplha strike ability. I'm hoping they'll release an Eldar flier at some point so I can have 2 fliers in an army and still have 2 Ravagers.

OK, I spotted this today and in one way it seems like it's just a re-wording of the 5th edition rule to make it more complete, but on the other hand it seems like a bit of a nerf that actually makes our skimmers even more inflammable. Am I correct in thinking that?

5th edition (p. 71)
" .... so a skimmer that is immobilised immediately crashes and is destroyed (wrecked) if it moved flat out in its last turn."

6th edition (p. 83)
"If it moved flat out in this, or the previous, turn, a skimmer that suffers an Immobilised result immediately crashes and is wrecked."

It's all good Gobsmakked, it's a clarified wording, so that if your opponent immobilises on his turn you still crash and explode, as you thought.

'Whenever a rule refers to "a turn" it always means "player turn" unless it specifically refers to a "game turn"' (Warhammer 40,000 6th Ed Rulebook, Game Turns and Player Turns, pg.9)

I think they mean during the previous player turn, not game turn. which is the same like before.

Shadows Revenge wrote:

I think they mean during the previous player turn, not game turn. which is the same like before.

The confusion normally arose when passengers were onboard. People always thought that the passengers were auto-killed if it crashed but that was only if it crashed on your turn.

yes, but now that doesnt even apply, since there is the emergency disembarkation move.

PartridgeKing wrote:

It's all good Gobsmakked, it's a clarified wording, so that if your opponent immobilises on his turn you still crash and explode, as you thought.

'Whenever a rule refers to "a turn" it always means "player turn" unless it specifically refers to a "game turn"' (Warhammer 40,000 6th Ed Rulebook, Game Turns and Player Turns, pg.9)

I think you are correct and this is initially what I thought. But I could also see that new wording causing problems from time to time. I guess we will see.

Thanks everyone.