Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Why 40K vehicles bother me (and no bs about balance, adjust the ###### point values)

1. We have diagrams suggesting all sorts of sophisticated weapons systems for predators and russes. Similar systems exist on modern tanks, How can these tanks not fire thier weapons while moving.

Tanks since the 1940s have been able to fire semi-accurately while on the move.
http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/dosdonts/index.html
b. Tactical

(1) Learn to fire on the move in case the terrain and hostile fire do not permit you to halt.

(2) When you come under hostile fire, run into a position giving defilade to the tank hull if possible. If there is no "hull-down" position, keep moving. When taking up a hull-down position, the gunner must give the order to halt, just as his sights break the crest. This saves unnecessary exposure.

(3) In open terrain, do not stay in position when being engaged by tanks heavier than your own or by antitank guns firing at effective ranges. Under these conditions, the aim must be to advance diagonally at a good speed into effective range, fire a number of rapid and accurate rounds, and break off action diagonally at a good speed. The latter maneuver can be covered by smoke.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/ww2peopleswar/stories/95/a4805895.shtml
The saving grace was that British tanks had their guns mounted on gimbals, which enabled them to fire on the move. The gimbals ironed out unevenness on the ground and the gunner could keep his aim. German armour had to stop in order to aim and fire.


2. Aircraft of any sort have always been able to fire all weapons while engaged at maximum speed (let alone rockets and a chin gun)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28RpUmrtGHE&feature=related

and certainly have always had sophisticated enough tactical sensors to do so. Why can't the landspeeder or falcon?


I find myself very annoyed with the divergence from reality distracting in 40K to say the least. In particular this is a disappointing when one of the designers claims to be a treadhead.


Heck why aren't there guard bikes and armoured cars?

I find myself very annoyed with the divergence from reality distracting in 40K to say the least. In particular this is a disappointing when one of the designers claims to be a treadhead.

Well you see, in case you haven't noticed, this is a game. It is a representation and an abstraction of real combat (laser guns and all) for the purpose of fun.

You might as well ask why your army does nothing half the time while it gets attacked, and why his army returns the favor.

It sounds like you might be interested in historic gaming. Those gamers have much more respect for "what could actually happen". For example: I overheard a guy arguing that his opponent couldn't move his chariot the way he was because real life horses where incapable of preforming that maneuver. His opponent yielded.

Why 40K vehicles bother me (and no bs about balance, adjust the ###### point values)

Points value doesn't fix everything. If falcons where 400 points they'd probably be more worth it. By the same token, if sister's repentia where 10 points, they'd still be crap. It all has to do with the role a unit plays. Slow moving, easy to kill, troops with super low initiative and few attacks (repentia), aren't useful no matter how cheep they are. Same thing goes for the falcon. It doesn't matter how many points the falcon is worth because those are still points your opponent will never get, and you will always have on an objective.

Sorry, after re-reading that post it's a bit hostile. No offense intended.

-Leo037

The same reason guns never jam, your soldiers never pass out, and why everyone in a squad fires with the same level of accuracy as everyone else; warhammer 40k emphasizes fun and simplicity over realism.

You might try something else to play in addition to 40k if you're really interested in simulation. Some historicals rulesets get pretty deep. There are also some strategy boardgames of the Avalon Hill type that might appeal to you. I used to have this game called MBT that was a tank combat game which simulated all manner of things, down to wind velocity and projectile trajectory.

I would like to find a hard SF sci fi game though.

I had MBT. It was a totally hardcore game. Not an awful lot of fun, though.

A lot of what you are complaining about is ties to balance of capability vs realism / simulation. And then there are issues of scale & time.

But really, the reason tanks don't fire at full effect on the move is a tactical playability decision. A design decision was made that tanks should have tradeoffs resulting in decreased accuracy and firepower when on the move.

It's the same reason Infantry can't fire Heavy weapons on the move, nor Assault after Rapid-Fire.

While the rules *could* be modeled after modern (or even 1940s) gyro-compensated weapons to allow for fire on the move, that isn't what the designers have intended.

As for 40k technology, there's that whole gothic wierdness permeating things. Who's to say what technology works, and what technology doesn't work, and what technology is unutilized by fiat, doctrine, and superstition.

In other words, the main gun and sensor systems of a Leman Russ might be allow for fully-automated hyper-accurate precision-targeted fire against all targets within it's threat radius (i.e. automatic penetrating hit on all enemy units within LOS). But because of the misunderstanding of how the Russ works, and what they're allowed to do, it operates in pure-manual mode over open sights, without any computer / automated support.

Why? Because some Russ gunner managed to take out an enemy tank using open sights a few thousand years ago, and now everybody else does it. Or any of a number of equally preposterous anti-technological scenarios.

Science is heresy after all.

-Leo037

In general, you will find that 40k rules and to a fair degree, the players are more interested in fun then realisim. This will lead to several unrealistic things like the tank rules you mentioned (or cover rules that allow a brick wall to help a marine against a tank busting missile but not help him at all against small arms fire). In the end, you can continue to play 40k if you enjoy it or you can look into historical tank battle games that are sure to provide more realisim than 40k does.

A number of people have mentioned "fun" as a reason why tanks can't move and fire in 40k and I'm a bit perplexed at this. How is it fun to have a LeMan Russ tank armed with five different weapons and be unable to fire more than one of them? Is it fun to look at a vehicle bristling with weapons and know that most will go the whole game without being used? It's a fairly common perception that many vehicles in 40k suck. Is sucking fun? I don't know about the rest of you, but is doesn't sound like fun to me.

Allowing vehicles to shoot effectively while moving would add a good deal of both realism and fun in my opinion. I mean who wouldn't love to roll into an enemy squad with all guns blazing? On the flip side, taking out such a death dealer would also be cause for much rejoicing.

Arstahd wrote:A number of people have mentioned "fun" as a reason why tanks can't move and fire in 40k and I'm a bit perplexed at this. How is it fun to have a LeMan Russ tank armed with five different weapons and be unable to fire more than one of them? Is it fun to look at a vehicle bristling with weapons and know that most will go the whole game without being used? It's a fairly common perception that many vehicles in 40k suck. Is sucking fun? I don't know about the rest of you, but is doesn't sound like fun to me.

Allowing vehicles to shoot effectively while moving would add a good deal of both realism and fun in my opinion. I mean who wouldn't love to roll into an enemy squad with all guns blazing? On the flip side, taking out such a death dealer would also be cause for much rejoicing.

Apparently wanting tanks to act like tanks is a desire not to have fun. Wanting things to suck is the MO for the whiners out there, they seem to desire a blander version of everything, where nothing is really good (or God help us) realistic.

Tanks in 40K blow now and are getting worse as time goes by. When I started a tank behaved as a tank should. Now they don't. It's not more fun. It's just more bad game design. A tank should dominate the field. Saying this doesn't mean I want windage and other realistic factors, the designers should feel free to figure out how to make them fun (to play).

The people who complain about the idea of tanks moving and shooting effectively are the same whiners you see complaining about the balance of everything that ever beat them.

Phoenix wrote:In general, you will find that 40k rules and to a fair degree, the players are more interested in fun then realisim. This will lead to several unrealistic things like the tank rules you mentioned (or cover rules that allow a brick wall to help a marine against a tank busting missile but not help him at all against small arms fire). In the end, you can continue to play 40k if you enjoy it or you can look into historical tank battle games that are sure to provide more realisim than 40k does.

The thing is I can also look at old editions of 40K which handled tanks better as well. I don't have to leave GW to see they have handled tanks better. They just don't do so now.

Having come from 2nd Ed, and having now played a ruleset for over three years (ours) where tanks can move and fire and fire at different targets, I really can't see what's 'unfun' about it. Unfun is tanks that have to sit still to fire all their guns. Unfun is a tank that has defensive sponsons that must fire at the same target as the main turret (ie. defensive weapons aren't defensive).

Unfun is GW's vehicle rules.

BYE

Cypher037 wrote:

I find myself very annoyed with the divergence from reality distracting in 40K to say the least. In particular this is a disappointing when one of the designers claims to be a treadhead.

Well you see, in case you haven't noticed, this is a game. It is a representation and an abstraction of real combat (laser guns and all) for the purpose of fun.

Really, This revalation comes as a shock to me. I'm saying tanks as the rules currently are do not reflect reality and that makes the game less fun for me, and some others who I have seen post.

Cypher037 wrote:
You might as well ask why your army does nothing half the time while it gets attacked, and why his army returns the favor.

Except I am not complaining about IGOUGO at the moment (It does stink up the game. Try using the LOTR's system and see how the game improves.

Cypher037 wrote:
It sounds like you might be interested in historic gaming. Those gamers have much more respect for "what could actually happen". For example: I overheard a guy arguing that his opponent couldn't move his chariot the way he was because real life horses where incapable of preforming that maneuver. His opponent yielded.

A desire to see tanks behave like tanks (even somewhat)= the obsessive behavior of historical gamers.

Why 40K vehicles bother me (and no bs about balance, adjust the ###### point values)

Points value doesn't fix everything. If falcons where 400 points they'd probably be more worth it. By the same token, if sister's repentia where 10 points, they'd still be crap. It all has to do with the role a unit plays. Slow moving, easy to kill, troops with super low initiative and few attacks (repentia), aren't useful no matter how cheep they are. Same thing goes for the falcon. It doesn't matter how many points the falcon is worth because those are still points your opponent will never get, and you will always have on an objective.

Sorry, after re-reading that post it's a bit hostile. No offense intended.

-Leo037

I agree with HBMC. The vehicle rules are a joke. I love 40k, I love the 'Background' but I dislike how they simplify some things so it's easier for a 'Game Designer' than even 'slightly' realistic for the player.

Yeah, a Land Raider, the MOST advanced Tank in the Space Marine Armoury, can only shoot 1 Sponson of Las-cannons if it moves. Yeah. Real advanced. If it moves as far as a guy can normally walk in the same time, it's going too fast to fire properly. Yeah. Right.*sigh*

Why is it good for troops to act like troops, but bad for tanks to act like tanks?

There's two arguments going on here.

Any argument based what tanks or any other weapon of war can realistically do on the field of battle is going to fail. 40K doesn't try to simulate modern warfare. It's based around a gothic future universe where the more ruthless, uncompromising army will stand triumphant over a pile of bodies. High performance modern weapons of war don't really gel with that. It doesn't necessarily exclude vehicles that move and fire, but it doesn't make an argument for them either.

The second argument here is about whether or not moving vehicles would improve the strategic game and the fun of 40K. Vehicles in the game aren't strong right now, but that could probably be fixed with points adjustments, or reducing available AT weapons, or more generous damage tables, so their relative balance in the game isn't really at issue. What really hurts vehicle is their lack of a unique role. To get full value out of most vehicles they have to sit still, leaving them just another static shooting unit like a devestator squad or any other infantry heavy squad. If vehicles could maintain full firepower while moving they'd have their own place in the game, have something unique to offer a player. I think that would give 40K players more strategic options, and make it a more fun game in the process.

efarrer wrote:The people who complain about the idea of tanks moving and shooting effectively are the same whiners you see complaining about the balance of everything that ever beat them.

This is sadly true.

I agree with Sebster. In my post, I wasn't saying that it would be un-fun if tanks could move and fire (frankly I don't know where that statement came from). I was simply saying, that using modern technology and 'what it's like in real life' is a poor reason. When I said 40k was a game, I just meant that it's an abstraction, not that it's for fun.

Stelek wrote:

efarrer wrote:The people who complain about the idea of tanks moving and shooting effectively are the same whiners you see complaining about the balance of everything that ever beat them.

This is sadly true.

Ummm. We're not the ones complaining and whining. You are (or everyone thats wants tanks to move and shoot). Besides, thats a unfair generalization that is mere conjecture. I'm trying to come up with a counterargument. but I can't, because I can't understand the logic that was used to make that leap of a conclusion.


-Leo037

Cypher037 wrote:I agree with Sebster. In my post, I wasn't saying that it would be un-fun if tanks could move and fire (frankly I don't know where that statement came from). I was simply saying, that using modern technology and 'what it's like in real life' is a poor reason. When I said 40k was a game, I just meant that it's an abstraction, not that it's for fun.

And what I'm saying is that that is total bull. Anabstraction is tanks roll 2d6 and add them together if the tank is moving at full speed, 2d6 and choose the highest at combat speed, and 2d6 and pick the lowest when not moving.

Not allowing a tank to both move and fire isn't an abstraction, it's just wrong. None of these things has ever worked that way in real life. That's not abstraction is just making things up, and that's kind of offensive when they say how much they love tanks. Your earlier posted sentence was so dumb and faboyish that I just ignored it.

On the basis that a game is a series of interesting choices, it makes sense to stop vehicles firing all their weapons when they move because it presents the player with choices such as whether to get into cover, or within range of an enemy, or to stop and shoot.

sebster wrote:There's two arguments going on here.

Any argument based what tanks or any other weapon of war can realistically do on the field of battle is going to fail. 40K doesn't try to simulate modern warfare. It's based around a gothic future universe where the more ruthless, uncompromising army will stand triumphant over a pile of bodies. High performance modern weapons of war don't really gel with that. It doesn't necessarily exclude vehicles that move and fire, but it doesn't make an argument for them either.

Wrong sebster. The examples I provided were not high tech examples. As a point of fact, they were from the very dawn of that style of warfare.

sebster wrote:
The second argument here is about whether or not moving vehicles would improve the strategic game and the fun of 40K. Vehicles in the game aren't strong right now, but that could probably be fixed with points adjustments, or reducing available AT weapons, or more generous damage tables, so their relative balance in the game isn't really at issue. What really hurts vehicle is their lack of a unique role. To get full value out of most vehicles they have to sit still, leaving them just another static shooting unit like a devestator squad or any other infantry heavy squad. If vehicles could maintain full firepower while moving they'd have their own place in the game, have something unique to offer a player. I think that would give 40K players more strategic options, and make it a more fun game in the process.

Which is exactly what I was trying to get across. Make tanks into tanks would give them that unique role. Right now a tank may as well be a forge world bunker.

Kilkrazy wrote:On the basis that a game is a series of interesting choices, it makes sense to stop vehicles firing all their weapons when they move because it presents the player with choices such as whether to get into cover, or within range of an enemy, or to stop and shoot.

While we are at it let's remove the ability to allow infantry to fire any weapons while they move to ensure a choice is made.

In fact, the game will be much more fun if we remove the ability of any unit to move.

I'd like to see tanks being more mobile. It would help out imperial gaurd a lot.

efarrer wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:On the basis that a game is a series of interesting choices, it makes sense to stop vehicles firing all their weapons when they move because it presents the player with choices such as whether to get into cover, or within range of an enemy, or to stop and shoot.

While we are at it let's remove the ability to allow infantry to fire any weapons while they move to ensure a choice is made.

In fact, the game will be much more fun if we remove the ability of any unit to move.

Most infantry can't fire while moving because they have heavy or RF weapons. (RF can move and double-tap within 12 of course -- that is a good kind of choice.)

The new "run" rule gives a choice to assault weapon carrying troops whether to move and shoot or to move and move again. A lot of assault weapon carrying troops will be assault troops so this will be an interesting choice for them.

Da Boss wrote:I'd like to see tanks being more mobile. It would help out imperial gaurd a lot.

Sadly that doesn't seem likely.

But... Guard may not need the help.

A full Infantry Platoon and an Armoured Fist Squad will give you tons of bodies to contest objectives with.

Large Blasts hit every model touched the same as Small Blasts. The leaked rules didn't cover ordnance, but it's likely to be the same. Also, AV14 is much stronger with the changes to Rending and glancing hits.

The result is that the Leman Russ Battletank will be an awe-inspiring engine of destruction in 5th edition. It's Battlecannon will be 25-50% more powerful and it'll be that much harder to take down (harder still once Marines get redone).

With a pair of Leman Russ and maybe a Demolisher supporting the advance of a wave of infantry (who can now run to make it to the objectives), the Imperial Guard is likely to be pretty scary. This scenario is pretty close to how the fluff portrays them too.

The biggest concern is Tyranids and Orks who will crush Imperial Guard in hand-to-hand and won't mind having pie-plates blown in their battleline. The relative invulnerability of the Russ to those armies may balance things out a bit though.

I have always been of the opinion that you need to see "between the turns" as it were. A tank can shoot on the move, as long as you don't go haul ass across the battle field (ie-12" or more) I do think that there could be bs modifiers for wheither or not you were stationary or moved and how far. I was a tanker in the US army, and can tell you point in fact that even as good as our targeting is now, shooting on the move over anything but the smoothest ground ata controled even pace is no easy task, if only to keep your face from getting bashed into the sight reticle. As such, a stationary vehicle could get a +1 to bs and a -1 for moving fast. Other than that it sorta makes sence to me, if you factor in all of the other elements like assaulting and so on and how they play out. Remember one full turn is supposed to be happening all at the same time.

Cypher037 wrote:Science is heresy after all.

-Leo037

You have spoken a forbidden word. Prepare for questioning.

@dark-hamish You are describing pretty much the BS modifiers from 2nd ed, it got pretty hairy keeping track of all that in a larger game.

I got into this same discussion in about 1997, we concluded that playing at realistic ranges scale ranges and thus, rulesets, would neccessitate the use of a car park sized battlefield and the inclusion of "battle scribes" just to keep track of what did what at any given time in 40k.

fog of games design and suspension of disbelief keep most games from lasting more than 2 hours

Kilkrazy wrote:

Most infantry can't fire while moving because they have heavy or RF weapons. (RF can move and double-tap within 12 of course -- that is a good kind of choice.)

The new "run" rule gives a choice to assault weapon carrying troops whether to move and shoot or to move and move again. A lot of assault weapon carrying troops will be assault troops so this will be an interesting choice for them.

I always think choice and options makes for a better game, even if it makes it more complex. Its like the chess argument about game design. Imagine a hypothetical chess that is played with half the number of pawns as the game we know. In that case, the queen is overpowered. The obvious choice is to remove the queen. That removes variety and options from the game at no real gain in simplification.....a better choice is to double the number of pawns.

Wait a minute, who's whining about tanks not being able to move and fire?

They can, I think they should, and I'll hold my judgement on how good or bad the rules are until released in 2009 and sitting in my hand.

I agree with Grignard's statement, that the dumbing/streamlining of 40K is sad. I enjoy being challenged, and these new Codices and new 5th edition rules appear written for the challenged, not to create any.

YMMV.