Tyran wrote: But it does show that modern combatants fire small arms at tanks with the objective of crippling them in the short term.
It would be interesting to know how many times engaging a vehicle like this was tried, and how often it yielded actionable result.
It might have been the case that 100,000 rounds were fired at a column of vehicles, and the MOST that did, was knock out the optics of a single machine.
yukishiro1 wrote: If the AT option was underpowered, the solution is to fix that, not remove my ability to find other ways to get to the same place.
Many AT weapons are underpowered at the moment. Buffing them is going to reduce the effectiveness of vehicles. Making vehicles more effective is, in turn, going to make non-AT weapons comparatively less effective.
How else is the new Eradicator/melta meta going to shake out? Either vehicles are going to get durability buffs that make them tougher to kill with non-AT weapons, or they're going to not exist.
Making AT weapons more effective intrinsically means making non-AT weapons less effective at AT if balance is to be maintained. That's a necessity. I mean, at a very basic level, making the AT weapons better at AT- so comparatively much better at AT than non-AT weapons- is increasing the specialization of weapons as I'm suggesting.
yukishiro1 wrote: You consider death hex and psychically enhanced guns a "gimmick," while loading up on tons of lascannons is a "strategy." But that's just your own biases talking. Maybe death hex and psychically enhanced weapons is the strategy for a faction based around psychic power, and spamming lascannons is the gimmick. Who's to say?
I want to a game where people can make tons of different builds work using the full flexibility accorded by the game mechanics. You seem to want a game where everyone has to build similar lists that take enough of what you consider to be mandatory in order not to get stomped because builds you don't like are "gimmicks." You're welcome to that opinion, but it's not one I share, and it relies on a subjective determination as to what is a gimmick and what isn't that not everyone shares.
Well, maybe I chose the wrong word, but fluff-bending abilities and combos (do the TS regularly summon specific Nurgle beasts for the sole purpose of rendering tanks vulnerable to rifles? Are Imperial Fists Intercessors routinely used as tank hunters? Does every Farseer know Doom, and is that really supposed to be the lynchpin of their army?) that turn anti-infantry into anti-tank options sure feel like gimmicks to me as far as verisimilitude is concerned. Far more so than bringing anti-tank weapons because there are tanks.
But I'm not even saying one is better than the other intrinsically from a game design perspective. I am arguing against your claim that being able to turn anti-infantry weapons into anti-tank gives you more list flexibility. I think it gives you less flexibility, by forcing you into either taking specific combos or abilities, or a large number of AT weapons; rather than being able to either take a small number of dedicated AT weapons to cover that requirement while the rest of your list is unrestricted, or keep using those combos/abilities and taking an even smaller number of dedicated AT weapons.
Regarding 'using the full flexibility accorded by the game mechanics': Yeah, we used to have more options in that regard. You could plan on zapping tanks from the front with lascannons to fish for damage, moving in for flanking melta shots against weaker armor for surer kills, throw demo charges or meltabombs for close-range (but one-use) destruction, or take melee infantry that could peel tanks apart. These gave you lots of options for ways to cover your anti-tank requirements, and if you played to those strengths, you could do a lot of damage with just a few anti-tank weapons.
The reduction in specialization with 8th/9th has homogenized those weapon profiles to be generally mediocre, and now you are forced to meet a baseline damage anti-tank damage output to be effective. You don't have tactical options so much as a numerical quota for wounds-per-turn, because the tactical context that could make those anti-tank weapons incredibly powerful- and allowed an army with little dedicated anti-tank capability to potentially still be effective if played well- is gone. The baseline in 8th was that your army has to be able to kill a Knight every turn. That's incredibly restrictive; building an army to that requirement isn't terribly liberating.
Again, look to non-40K games. In Heresy, there are loads of infantry that can take meltabombs, and they're very capable of instakilling 400+pt vehicles. My options aren't just 'take lots of anti-tank guns' or 'find a special ability combo that will turn my rifles into anti-tank guns'; I can equip my infantry to be situationally effective and then play to that strength. That is a tactical choice that is largely missing from 40K, where equivalent weapons are blandly less effective, and a meltabomb that hits a Leman Russ has a 12.5% chance of causing any immediate detrimental effect.
In any case, players routinely accept that loading up on lascannons and not taking any anti-infantry weapons results in problems against hordes. Why is wanting to take no anti-tank weapons and still be effective at anti-tank more justifiable?
Edit: I mean, when it comes right down to it, previous versions of 40K allowed you to make up for a lack of anti-tank ability by employing strategy as a force-multiplier. 8th/9th does not, instead it allows you to use stratagem combos largely decided during listbuilding as a force-multiplier. If you're saying you prefer a strategic wargame and don't like when games are decided during listbuilding, surely you'd prefer the option that rewards smart play over netlisting?
Tyran wrote: But it does show that modern combatants fire small arms at tanks with the objective of crippling them in the short term.
It would be interesting to know how many times engaging a vehicle like this was tried, and how often it yielded actionable result.
It might have been the case that 100,000 rounds were fired at a column of vehicles, and the MOST that did, was knock out the optics of a single machine.
Possibly, but it still is a tank out of the fight for the next few days.
Also it shows that if you only have bullets, well shoot a lot of them and you may actually do something, which is better than doing nothing.
Dysartes wrote: yukishiro, you were asked a couple of pages back for a citation on the claim that MBTs in the Iraq War were taken out of commission by small arms fire, a claim which you were using to argue that lasguns hurting Land Raiders was, in fact, realistic.
Such a citation has yet to be forthcoming - please provide it, or concede that your point was groundless.
To be fair it wasn't him it was me and I told you exactlly where the information came from its in afteraction reports available from the DoD and MoD on the report of costs of repairing heavy armoured vehicles. I'm genuine not sure how publicly available it is without paying them money.
But it broke down the reason the vehical was removed from active pool, damage inflicted, replacement parta and costs time to supply parts and time to fit and release to service the vehical.
I will pointout we aren't talking actually doing this with a lucky shot or two the figures were something nuts like 1000s of round impacts and esentially all they destroyed was optics leaving the vehical combat/mission killed due to the crew being unable to see where they were going/shooting.
Most of the time the vehicals where combat ready within 48 hours hence the only place this info is really captured is in these spending documents or probably classified action/mission reports.
Ok. . . so to confirm, thousands of rounds were fired at this vehicle and the only damage it sustained was some broken optics, yes?
It didn't like. . . blow up and kill the occupants inside and throw shrapnel around. It could have still driven around if, for example, a heavily armored crewman decided to pop their head out and give commands or soemthing?
In fact it seems like you're saying that 40 has never been realistic, but also saying that the mechanics of prior 40K were more realistic, at the same time.
That's exactly what I'm saying. There's nothing contradictory about that. 40k has never been a realistic simulation-based wargame,
When we describe the benefits of that system. You say:
A: It's not realistic
B: It's more realistic but 40K isn't meant to be realistic
C: Despite having been more realistic in the past, 40K has never been realistic.
Armor values isn't particularly realistic. It's probably more realistic than vehicles having wounds. But 40k isn't a realistic game and it's become less so over the years. Still don't see what you're having trouble with there?
Ok, so it IS more realistic though. That's something.
and flanking a vehicle DOES have strategic value, yes? You just don't like it.
Models killed aren't always necessarily dead. Sometimes they're just wounded too much and can't keep fighting. Treat vehicles like that instead of always explosions if that helps you cope or whatever.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also flanking would have a strategic value if it weren't so bloody easy to do it.
@catbarf
One could make the observation that if better AT weapons make vehicles more vulnerable, then reducing the effectivness of small arms against vehicles can counter-balance that oncreased vulnerability.
If you want to add in more AT options for taking out vehicles, that's fine with me. In fact, it's great. What I object to is your insistence that we have to eliminate the ability of non-dedicated-AT to meaningfully hurt vehicles as part of your solution, because it offends you that someone might have come up with a way to deal with vehicles you think is a gimmick.
You want the game played your way, and consider playing it other ways to be gimmicky and unacceptable. That's fine, you can have that opinion, but that opinion is subjective. It's not based on anything but your own preferences.
I prefer a game where there are different ways to skin the cat. If you want to take tons of AT to deal with vehicles, cool. If I want to take psychic support that can make it possible for my rubrics to deal with vehicles - not as well as dedicated AT, but well enough that I don't auto-lose any game against lots of tanks - why is that something that needs to be removed from the game because you don't like it?
I want a game with many options for how to build a TAC list. You want one where everyone has to take dedicated anti-tank weapons from a list you approve of, where creative approaches are brute-forced into irrelevancy because they don't fit your idea of what's acceptable. That's fine, but we're not going to agree that you're right and I'm wrong.
Tyran wrote: But it does show that modern combatants fire small arms at tanks with the objective of crippling them in the short term.
It would be interesting to know how many times engaging a vehicle like this was tried, and how often it yielded actionable result.
It might have been the case that 100,000 rounds were fired at a column of vehicles, and the MOST that did, was knock out the optics of a single machine.
It happens a lot when your dealing with people who have zero other options like during those operations but as a tactic by a well supplied competent near parity adversary, never because it's not effective/consistantly reliable.
Just to rough out the maths thats over 300 magazines of AK fire ie were probably talking about situations where the tanks for political reasons weren't shooting back, like your probably talking fire without shooring back from maybe 30 muinets or more.
Tyran wrote: But it does show that modern combatants fire small arms at tanks with the objective of crippling them in the short term.
It would be interesting to know how many times engaging a vehicle like this was tried, and how often it yielded actionable result.
It might have been the case that 100,000 rounds were fired at a column of vehicles, and the MOST that did, was knock out the optics of a single machine.
It happens a lot when your dealing with people who have zero other options like during those operations but as a tactic by a well supplied competent near parity adversary, never because it's not effective/consistantly reliable.
Just to rough out the maths thats over 300 magazines of AK fire ie were probably talking about situations where the tanks for political reasons weren't shooting back, like your probably talking fire without shooring back from maybe 30 muinets or more.
sure, but not firing for political reasons isnt exactly the paradigm 40k exists in.
Insectum7 wrote: @catbarf
One could make the observation that if better AT weapons make vehicles more vulnerable, then reducing the effectivness of small arms against vehicles can counter-balance that oncreased vulnerability.
yukishiro1 wrote: If you want to add in more AT options for taking out vehicles, that's fine with me. In fact, it's great. What I object to is your insistence that we have to eliminate the ability of non-dedicated-AT to meaningfully hurt vehicles as part of your solution, because it offends you that someone might have come up with a way to deal with vehicles you think is a gimmick.
You want the game played your way, and consider playing it other ways to be gimmicky and unacceptable. That's fine, you can have that opinion, but that opinion is subjective. It's not based on anything but your own preferences.
I prefer a game where there are different ways to skin the cat. If you want to take tons of AT to deal with vehicles, cool. If I want to take psychic support that can make it possible for my rubrics to deal with vehicles - not as well as dedicated AT, but well enough that I don't auto-lose any game against lots of tanks - why is that something that needs to be removed from the game because you don't like it?
I want a game with many options for how to build a TAC list. You want one where everyone has to take dedicated anti-tank weapons from a list you approve of, where creative approaches are brute-forced into irrelevancy because they don't fit your idea of what's acceptable. That's fine, but we're not going to agree that you're right and I'm wrong.
engaging vehicles in cc is also another way to skin the cat. Why not that option?
yukishiro1 wrote: If I want to take psychic support that can make it possible for my rubrics to deal with vehicles - not as well as dedicated AT, but well enough that I don't auto-lose any game against lots of tanks - why is that something that needs to be removed from the game because you don't like it?
Is this strategy that you would like to see preserved actually contingent on letting lasguns blow up Land Raiders?
Or to put it another way: Why are you insisting that all small arms need to be effective against vehicles so as to preserve your single strategy, rather than something like specifically having psychic support make Rubrics uniquely capable of dealing with vehicles with their small arms, if that's actually intended to be a viable style of play?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
yukishiro1 wrote: I want a game with many options for how to build a TAC list. You want one where everyone has to take dedicated anti-tank weapons from a list you approve of, where creative approaches are brute-forced into irrelevancy because they don't fit your idea of what's acceptable. That's fine, but we're not going to agree that you're right and I'm wrong.
This is a really tiring way you keep presenting it.
I want my melee-only Hormagaunts to be able to damage tanks from 24" away. That should be an option for me when building a TAC list. You want a game where I can only take ranged weapons from a list you approve of, where creative approaches are brute-forced into irrelevancy because they don't fit your idea of what's acceptable.
See how ridiculous that sounds? I'm not gatekeeping your army because I expect verisimilitude from the gameplay, unless your army relies on unrealistic/unfluffy tactics in the first place.
Just to rough out the maths thats over 300 magazines of AK fire ie were probably talking about situations where the tanks for political reasons weren't shooting back, like your probably talking fire without shooring back from maybe 30 muinets or more.
So sorta like how in 40k right now a guard squad rapid firing a tank all game with lasguns with the tank not firing back could take off 1/4 of its wounds, 1/2 with the double shoot order?
It seems like this might be pretty well modeled after all...
See how ridiculous that sounds? I'm not gatekeeping your army because I expect verisimilitude from the gameplay, unless your army relies on unrealistic/unfluffy tactics in the first place.
And your definition of "unrealistic tactics" is TSons using psychic support to buff themselves and debuff the enemy to the point where their warp-infused bolters can damage tanks.
We're not going to agree that TSons or Eldar relying on psychic powers to help them destroy tanks is an unacceptable gimmick that needs to be eliminated from the game because it offends your sensibilities.
yukishiro1 wrote: If you want to add in more AT options for taking out vehicles, that's fine with me. In fact, it's great. What I object to is your insistence that we have to eliminate the ability of non-dedicated-AT to meaningfully hurt vehicles as part of your solution, because it offends you that someone might have come up with a way to deal with vehicles you think is a gimmick.
You want the game played your way, and consider playing it other ways to be gimmicky and unacceptable. That's fine, you can have that opinion, but that opinion is subjective. It's not based on anything but your own preferences.
I prefer a game where there are different ways to skin the cat. If you want to take tons of AT to deal with vehicles, cool. If I want to take psychic support that can make it possible for my rubrics to deal with vehicles - not as well as dedicated AT, but well enough that I don't auto-lose any game against lots of tanks - why is that something that needs to be removed from the game because you don't like it?
I want a game with many options for how to build a TAC list. You want one where everyone has to take dedicated anti-tank weapons you approve of. That's fine, but we're not going to agree.
The probelm is with the current wounding chart vehical toughness values are straight up far too low.
Like you can get rubrics to doing a wound on T7 3+ save tank/monster for every
1.8 hits with a soul reaper and every 3 hits with a bolter
The problem is that is way too efficent for the costs GW puts on t7+ models.
yukishiro1 wrote: And your definition of "unrealistic tactics" is TSons using psychic support to buff themselves and debuff the enemy to the point where their warp-infused bolters can damage tanks.
We're not going to agree that TSons or Eldar relying on psychic powers to help them destroy tanks is an unacceptable gimmick that needs to be eliminated from the game because it offends your sensibilities.
Is TSons using psychic abilities to gun down Knights with their bolters, including summoning in Nurgle beasts to degrade their armor, something that actually happens in the fluff?
Does this whole argument that rifles should be able to credibly damage tanks spawn from you being defensive over an effective, but not very fluff-accurate, game combo that you've based your whole army around?
Just to rough out the maths thats over 300 magazines of AK fire ie were probably talking about situations where the tanks for political reasons weren't shooting back, like your probably talking fire without shooring back from maybe 30 muinets or more.
So sorta like how in 40k right now a guard squad rapid firing a tank all game with lasguns with the tank not firing back could take off 1/4 of its wounds, 1/2 with the double shoot order?
It seems like this might be pretty well modeled after all...
See how ridiculous that sounds? I'm not gatekeeping your army because I expect verisimilitude from the gameplay, unless your army relies on unrealistic/unfluffy tactics in the first place.
And your definition of "unrealistic tactics" is TSons using psychic support to buff themselves and debuff the enemy to the point where their warp-infused bolters can damage tanks.
We're not going to agree that TSons or Eldar relying on psychic powers to help them destroy tanks is an unacceptable gimmick that needs to be eliminated from the game because it offends your sensibilities.
Except Guard with lasguns still have better odds than these wierd real life scenarios where the vehicals were ordered not to shoot back.
It only takes 234 lasgun hits to kill a predator not the 1000s that it should, the issue is the odds are far to generous.
Simply giving vehicals +1T or even +2T would solve a lot of the issues especially with GW about to massively increase the damage coming from alot of the problem categorys like Marine's who get free AP and heavy weapons in general not just specifically anti armour weapons being buffed.
yukishiro1 wrote: And your definition of "unrealistic tactics" is TSons using psychic support to buff themselves and debuff the enemy to the point where their warp-infused bolters can damage tanks.
We're not going to agree that TSons or Eldar relying on psychic powers to help them destroy tanks is an unacceptable gimmick that needs to be eliminated from the game because it offends your sensibilities.
Is TSons using psychic abilities to gun down Knights with their bolters, including summoning in Nurgle beasts to degrade their armor, something that actually happens in the fluff?
Does this whole argument that rifles should be able to credibly damage tanks spawn from you being defensive over an effective, but not very fluff-accurate, game combo that you've based your whole army around?
In the fluff, Cherubael - modeled in game by a 25 point daemon host with a single S8 ranged attack with D3 damage on a 6+ to wound - blows the top half off a Warlord Titan with a single psychic blast. I'm sure we can find a lot of crazier things in the fluff than psychically-supported rubrics being able to damage tanks with warp-infused bolters.
But we're done here. You just went personal and tried to win the argument by claiming I have ulterior motives for my position, and there is absolutely zero point in discussing something with someone who insists that you're operating under bad faith. I don't even use that list any more, but that's not the point: the point is that there is no discussion to be had with someone who says you're arguing in bad faith, because it's an inherently irrefutable charge. I can't prove to you what is or is not in my head and when the discussion becomes about my motives it ceases to be a meaningful discussion.
Sorry, but unless you retract and apologize for the bad faith accusation, I am not going to be responding to your posts further.
yukishiro1 wrote: Is it, though? Were rubric lists tearing up the meta by gunning down tanks?
They weren't. Nobody in the history of 40k has ever said "my tank list is ruined because of rubric marines!"
When you get to 12 soul reaper cannons with only their raw stats and presence (deathhex is an invulnerable saves) 426 points kills a 500 point Model that says yes. Given your shooting dedicated anit infantry weapons at a vehical and achieving a better than 100% return on points that's a problem.
Insectum7 wrote: @catbarf
One could make the observation that if better AT weapons make vehicles more vulnerable, then reducing the effectivness of small arms against vehicles can counter-balance that oncreased vulnerability.
So you want to make the MM better?
Gw is already doing that. The question is whether or not they'll do anything to help vehicles survive.
yukishiro1 wrote: Is it, though? Were rubric lists tearing up the meta by gunning down tanks?
They weren't. Nobody in the history of 40k has ever said "my tank list is ruined because of rubric marines!"
When you get to 12 soul reaper cannons with only their raw stats and presence (deathhex is an invulnerable saves) 426 points kills a 500 point Model that says yes. Given your shooting dedicated anit infantry weapons at a vehical and achieving a better than 100% return on points that's a problem.
Um, to take 12 soulreaper cannons you need a minimum of 60 rubric marines. That's 1200 points just for the rubrics.. Dunno where your math is coming from. The way you kill T7 tanks efficiently with rubrics is vets + double shoot strat + prescience, not soulreapers. The only way you can kill T8 targets efficiently with rubrics is to soup in a toughness debuff so you can get the bolters back to wounding on 4s.
I stand by my point that nobody in the history of 40k has ever said "my tank list is ruined by rubric marines."
yukishiro1 wrote: In the fluff, Cherubael - modeled in game by a 25 point daemon host with a single S8 ranged attack with D3 damage on a 6+ to wound - blows the top half off a Warlord Titan with a single psychic blast. I'm sure we can find a lot of crazier things in the fluff than rubrics being able to damage tanks with warp-infused bolters.
So realism is out and we shouldn't base the game on realism.
And fluff is out and we shouldn't base the game on fluff.
What does that leave?
yukishiro1 wrote: But we're done here. You just went personal and tried to win the argument by claiming I have ulterior motives for my position, and there is absolutely zero point in discussing something with someone who insists that you're operating under bad faith. I don't even use that list any more, but that's not the point: the point is that there is no discussion to be had with someone who says you're arguing in bad faith, because it's an inherently irrefutable charge. I can't prove to you what is or is not in my head and when the discussion becomes about my motives it ceases to be a meaningful discussion.
Bruh.
You don't get to frame the discussion about how it's not fair for your army concept to be invalidated, and then call it bad faith when I ask if the fact that it would invalidate your army is the main reason why you're taking such a hardline stance against systems you have no personal experience with.
A Rhino required 18 S4 melee hits to be taken out of commission in 7th, it now requires 90. Even with power swords you only get down to 36, still twice as many as in 7th. A Rhino required 18 heavy bolter hits to be taken out in 7th, 60 in 8th, 30 in 9th.
The definition of take all comers is in the name, it does not mean casual or varied although you might have used it that way. Now to some degree language changes over time, but when words are taken to mean things they by definition don't and for which there are other terms then it's just abusing the language and making terms less meaningful.
If you read through articles online you will find what your list needs to be able to do to be a take all comers list, not that it needs to include a bit of this and a bit of that just because. Why does a list need anti-Rhino? Because otherwise you'll get wrecked by Rhinos. Why does a list need anti-Land Raider? Because otherwise you will be wrecked by Land Raiders. Why does your list need transports? To provide cover and mobility so you can stay safe and get to objectives. It's not "you ought to take some elites and some cheap guys so your opponent has a pick of what he'd like to shoot" or "if you only spam Ork Boyz all your opponent's Eradicators will be sad"
If you can literally take all comers then your list is TAC. If your list has a 10% WR against Marines and a 70% WR against Tau it's not a TAC list, even if you have a lot of different datasheets and different kinds of datasheets and included some units just because they're cool. You could say you tried to make a TAC list but if you consistently lose to SM then you've done a bad job, you've made an anti-Tau list and if you also lose against Tau you've just made a silly list, not a TAC list.
It's a bad idea to engage a vehicle in melee if the vehicle deals more damage than your elite melee unit because it can shoot while in combat. It'd be really silly if GW implemented a rule that allowed that. /s
You don't get to frame the discussion about how it's not fair for your army concept to be invalidated, and then call it bad faith when I ask if the fact that it would invalidate your army is the main reason why you're taking such a hardline stance against systems you have no personal experience with.
It's a literal accusation of bad faith - "why you think this is not why you say you do, it's because you have ulterior motives." I don't argue with people who make bad faith accusations, it's a waste of everyone's time.
We're done. The discussion is over. You ended it by making an accusation of bad faith. I'll continue to discuss the topic with others, but this is the last time I'm responding to you. I hope you find other people more willing to entertain your style of argument.
Insectum7 wrote: @catbarf
One could make the observation that if better AT weapons make vehicles more vulnerable, then reducing the effectivness of small arms against vehicles can counter-balance that oncreased vulnerability.
So you want to make the MM better?
Gw is already doing that. The question is whether or not they'll do anything to help vehicles survive.
But how does reducing small arms fire make it ok for vehicles? His point wasn't vehicles get more durable. It was just that small arms do nothing and anti-tank gets scarier, which does nothing to make vehicles better, because most of them are already getting hit by big guns.
This whole bolters killing tanks exercise is a little gremlin that lives inside people's heads and rarely comes out into the light. Things like Rubrics - 10 do 6 wounds to a knight with reroll 1s and 2 CP and only if they stood still. This doesn't get you anywhere close to offing a knight. Either you smite the ever loving gak out of it (hard to do now since HQs slots are harder to come by) or you use AT.
I think people only ever look at Aggressors (and other marines) doing silly things and that shapes their whole world view.
It only takes 234 lasgun hits to kill a predator not the 1000s that it should, the issue is the odds are far to generous.
Simply giving vehicals +1T or even +2T would solve a lot of the issues especially with GW about to massively increase the damage coming from alot of the problem categorys like Marine's who get free AP and heavy weapons in general not just specifically anti armour weapons being buffed.
One shot doesn't represent a single shot. A guardsmen doesn't fire only 5-10 shots over the course of a 40k battle. A single lasgun attack is an abstraction of what is likely dozens of discharges. I don't think it's unreasonable that a single guardsmen rapid firing at a tank for an entire 40k battle (surely a battle lasts at least an hour?) could expect a decent chance that one of his shots might hit a vulnerable place and inflict a wound.
And giving vehicles +1T or +2 T would change the amount of lasgun shots required to destroy a predator by precisely zero. It would literally make no difference. So if your problem is 115 guardsmen worth of lasgun shots can destroy a predator, your suggestion doesn't solve that at all.
yeah i'm going to have to call bs on small arms fire doing even a mobility kill on a modern battle tank. i can't find even anecdotes about it. lot of anecdotes about tankers complaining about their rucksacks getting shot up though, and plenty of firsthand accounts stating small arms fire is basically useless.
snipers are and will always be a problem for tank crews out of the vehicle but that's not what's being discussed.
there were plenty trashed in the iraq invasion and especially the years after, and were generally taken out by IED's (made from anti tank mines, 155mm howitzer shells, or good old chemical fertilzer) and two stage RPGs which are specifically made to crack composite armor. there is no shortage of these weapons and the abrams is a big, expensive tempting target. so of course it gets lit up.
even the outline of the procurement document for the next gen infantry carrier scoffs at small arms as a threat, and these are only tanks in the loosest sense of the word and certainly not MBT.
so, i'm going to need to see the receipts on this one.
It only takes 234 lasgun hits to kill a predator not the 1000s that it should, the issue is the odds are far to generous.
Simply giving vehicals +1T or even +2T would solve a lot of the issues especially with GW about to massively increase the damage coming from alot of the problem categorys like Marine's who get free AP and heavy weapons in general not just specifically anti armour weapons being buffed.
One shot doesn't represent a single shot. A guardsmen doesn't fire only 5-10 shots over the course of a 40k battle. A single lasgun attack is an abstraction of what is likely dozens of discharges.
And giving vehicles +1T or +2 T would change the amount of lasgun shots required to destroy a predator by precisely zero. It would literally make no difference. So if your problem is 115 guardsmen worth of lasgun shots can destroy a predator, your suggestion doesn't solve that at all.
May issue is more with punishers, onslaught, plasma, grav, disis, new heavy bolters etc ie all the spammed medium strength stuff that needs the S to wound Marines as they're now hitting T5 with 50% of their infantry FFS. While MBT's only see a 16% shift in durability. The flatter wounding chart means you need bigger shifts in T to have a meaningful impact on the results especially when you start handing out +1 to wound rolls, reroll wound rolls and all the other wombo combos you can build-up.
The stats were too compressed ok cool so why are we still stuck in editions where 90% of the game lives in T3, T4, T5, T7 &T8. It leads to some seriously bad scaling between targets with the new everythind hurts wound chart.
You don't get to frame the discussion about how it's not fair for your army concept to be invalidated, and then call it bad faith when I ask if the fact that it would invalidate your army is the main reason why you're taking such a hardline stance against systems you have no personal experience with.
It's a literal accusation of bad faith - "why you think this is not why you say you do, it's because you have ulterior motives." I don't argue with people who make bad faith accusations, it's a waste of everyone's time.
We're done. The discussion is over. You ended it by making an accusation of bad faith. I'll continue to discuss the topic with others, but this is the last time I'm responding to you. I hope you find other people more willing to entertain your style of argument.
I'll retract my 'accusation of bad faith', and take your word that you are arguing objectively out of what you feel is best for the game.
Frankly, it was a sincere question, because your examples with the Rubrics keep looping back to how the proposed changes affect your army. If you don't want people thinking your arguments might stem from how the ideas would affect you personally, don't base them on how your current army build would be invalidated- especially if your counter-arguments against proposed alternatives amount to thought experiments because you have no actual experience with them. That's all.
Daedalus81 wrote: But how does reducing small arms fire make it ok for vehicles? His point wasn't vehicles get more durable. It was just that small arms do nothing and anti-tank gets scarier, which does nothing to make vehicles better, because most of them are already getting hit by big guns.
This whole bolters killing tanks exercise is a little gremlin that lives inside people's heads and rarely comes out into the light. Things like Rubrics - 10 do 6 wounds to a knight with reroll 1s and 2 CP and only if they stood still. This doesn't get you anywhere close to offing a knight. Either you smite the ever loving gak out of it (hard to do now since HQs slots are harder to come by) or you use AT.
I think people only ever look at Aggressors (and other marines) doing silly things and that shapes their whole world view.
Bolters/lasguns killing tanks in a vacuum are the boogeyman that rarely actually happens; but they're the extreme example of mechanics that have other, much more significant effects- like Punishers being better at anti-tank than Vanquishers are. The problem isn't that those weapons overperform in general, because they're about where they should be for anti-horde; they just overperform against heavy vehicles.
It wouldn't take much adjustment to shift the balance. A 2+ save on vehicles would do a lot, likely balanced by a reduction in wounds. This would make them harder to kill with high-volume, low-AP fire, but dedicated AT weapons would be significantly more effective.
This would in turn also make them more resilient to small arms. Whether that's acceptable or not is really the last few pages of discussion.
If we wanted to get really fancy it wouldn't be hard to bring back facings, represented with multiple save values. So maybe a Chimera could be 2+ from the front, but 3+ from other angles. Using FoW's simple arc-determination system would eliminate the complaints about determining facing with non-boxy vehicles.
I think it'd probably be better just to give vehicles more wounds or a base 2+ rather than more toughness. Your solution wouldn't actually make it significantly harder to wound vehicles with those things either. You'd need to bring vehicles to T10 to change the math on S5 weapons wounding them, for example.
The fundamental problem is stat inflation. But that's a different conversation.
gigasnail wrote: yeah i'm going to have to call bs on small arms fire doing even a mobility kill on a modern battle tank. i can't find even anecdotes about it. lot of anecdotes about tankers complaining about their rucksacks getting shot up though, and plenty of firsthand accounts stating small arms fire is basically useless.
snipers are and will always be a problem for tank crews out of the vehicle but that's not what's being discussed.
there were plenty trashed in the iraq invasion and especially the years after, and were generally taken out by IED's (made from anti tank mines, 155mm howitzer shells, or good old chemical fertilzer) and two stage RPGs which are specifically made to crack composite armor. there is no shortage of these weapons and the abrams is a big, expensive tempting target. so of course it gets lit up.
even the outline of the procurement document for the next gen infantry carrier scoffs at small arms as a threat, and these are only tanks in the loosest sense of the word and certainly not MBT.
so, i'm going to need to see the receipts on this one.
Reread the conversations they weren't mobility killed, nobody was injured, the tank became combat/mission ineffective because I'm going to guess being ambushed in areas they weren't cleared to return fire in, resulted in sufficient damage to thermal sights, camera's and vision blocks which resulted in such a reduction in situational awareness/ability to aim weapons the tank was not considered fit for combat.
It really comes down to the old adage you can't kill what you can't see.
Insectum7 wrote: @catbarf
One could make the observation that if better AT weapons make vehicles more vulnerable, then reducing the effectivness of small arms against vehicles can counter-balance that oncreased vulnerability.
So you want to make the MM better?
Gw is already doing that. The question is whether or not they'll do anything to help vehicles survive.
But how does reducing small arms fire make it ok for vehicles? His point wasn't vehicles get more durable. It was just that small arms do nothing and anti-tank gets scarier, which does nothing to make vehicles better, because most of them are already getting hit by big guns.
This whole bolters killing tanks exercise is a little gremlin that lives inside people's heads and rarely comes out into the light. Things like Rubrics - 10 do 6 wounds to a knight with reroll 1s and 2 CP and only if they stood still. This doesn't get you anywhere close to offing a knight. Either you smite the ever loving gak out of it (hard to do now since HQs slots are harder to come by) or you use AT.
I think people only ever look at Aggressors (and other marines) doing silly things and that shapes their whole world view.
Ah, sorry Daed, I was commenting on the vulnerabilities of vehicles against all the improvements gw is making to weapons like meltas and multi-meltas, I don't care if someone wants to fish for 6s in an attempt to bring down a tank with lasguns or bolters, unless those bolters belong to Loyalist Dogs that get free AP on them "just because". Something like a boost to toughness, or some way to reduce AP. Those multi-meltas are going to wreck anything T8 without an invul, and anything T7 with one.
Ice_can wrote: Reread the conversations they weren't mobility killed, nobody was injured, the tank became combat/mission ineffective because I'm going to guess being ambushed in areas they weren't cleared to return fire in, resulted in sufficient damage to thermal sights, camera's and vision blocks which resulted in such a reduction in situational awareness/ability to aim weapons the tank was not considered fit for combat.
It really comes down to the old adage you can't kill what you can't see.
I would like to point out that there is a huge gulf between a vehicle being deemed not fit for combat and a vehicle becoming actually combat-ineffective and a mission kill. If it was the former, then that does not necessarily mean the vehicle was at all incapacitated. It could just be the kind of damage that would fall under 'Crew Shaken' in the old system.
yukishiro1 wrote: I think it'd probably be better just to give vehicles more wounds or a base 2+ rather than more toughness. Your solution wouldn't actually make it significantly harder to wound vehicles with those things either. You'd need to bring vehicles to T10 to change the math on S5 weapons wounding them, for example.
The fundamental problem is stat inflation. But that's a different conversation.
2+ saves help untill GW does a GW and hands out free AP to 50% of the armies.
Also I do think vehicals should be Tougher but with MW spam GW also kinda made T redundant already.
Insectum7 wrote: @catbarf
One could make the observation that if better AT weapons make vehicles more vulnerable, then reducing the effectivness of small arms against vehicles can counter-balance that oncreased vulnerability.
So you want to make the MM better?
I think I'm on record as desiring the Multimelta get two shots in 2017. I'm fine with the Multimelta getting better.
Ice_can wrote: Reread the conversations they weren't mobility killed, nobody was injured, the tank became combat/mission ineffective because I'm going to guess being ambushed in areas they weren't cleared to return fire in, resulted in sufficient damage to thermal sights, camera's and vision blocks which resulted in such a reduction in situational awareness/ability to aim weapons the tank was not considered fit for combat.
It really comes down to the old adage you can't kill what you can't see.
I would like to point out that there is a huge gulf between a vehicle being deemed not fit for combat and a vehicle becoming actually combat-ineffective and a mission kill. If it was the former, then that does not necessarily mean the vehicle was at all incapacitated. It could just be the kind of damage that would fall under 'Crew Shaken' in the old system.
When your talking the dollar values and lists of parts we're not talking 1 or 2 where talking like 12 vision blocks 3 thermal sights and other auxiliaries.
Just to be sure I've not mis terminology this as I've learned what MoD classifies things and DoD means by the same phrase isn't the same.
A mission kill means the vehical was removed from the mission due to damage sustained.
which conversations am i supposed to be rereading? because i'm literally finding nothing supporting even this. any significant damage has been from IEDs/RPGs.
This whole bolters killing tanks exercise is a little gremlin that lives inside people's heads and rarely comes out into the light. Things like Rubrics - 10 do 6 wounds to a knight with reroll 1s and 2 CP and only if they stood still. This doesn't get you anywhere close to offing a knight.
Those 6 wounds are the average damage that Eight Lascannons do to the same Knight.
gigasnail wrote: which conversations am i supposed to be rereading? because i'm literally finding nothing supporting even this. any significant damage has been from IEDs/RPGs.
You changed the measure from removed from combat/mission to mobility kill. I never claimed any data backed up mobility kills.
I know of 1 but that's an odd ball Adrams design issue where pouring fuel onto the engine deck causes a fire.
This whole bolters killing tanks exercise is a little gremlin that lives inside people's heads and rarely comes out into the light. Things like Rubrics - 10 do 6 wounds to a knight with reroll 1s and 2 CP and only if they stood still. This doesn't get you anywhere close to offing a knight.
Those 6 wounds are the average damage that Eight Lascannons do to the same Knight.
8 x .666 x .666 x .5 x 3.5 = 6.2
Knights are designed to withstand lascannons, Rubrics use anti-tank Strat, Knight uses anti lascannon Strat. Unfair comparisson, not to mention shootx2 effects are cancer, because with those 2cp spent on Rubs 5 Slaanesh Havocs with lascannons can do the same thing.
vict0988 wrote: Knights are designed to withstand lascannons
That's a big part of the problem, though, isn't it? I mean, it's not just Knights- in addition to AT weapons being generally less effective than they were in previous editions (example: used to be that 3 lascannon hits popped a Rhino, now it's around 5), the heavier things that you should really want lascannons to kill now generally have invulns that render high-AP useless.
yukishiro1 wrote: Can you imagine the tedium in a game like modern 40k where somebody can bring 12 tanks? Just figuring out where each one was being hit by what would take you 20 minutes every shooting phase. The arguments about "no, only 3 of your guys can hit my side armor! no, 5 can, these two are .01mm closer to the side than the front!" etc etc.
No need to imagine, because those games exist, and it's not actually a problem in real life. The games of Heresy I've played (with lots of tanks, to be clear) have gone faster than 40K. Lack of rerolls dramatically outweighs the (minimal) time requirement to work out facing. In Flames of War you can have 40+ vehicles on the board and spend no measurable time at all assessing facing.
Honestly, you really would be a lot better off if you had game experience outside 40K to refer to. That's not a jab, I'm serious. 40K alone provides a very limited perspective on game design.
Yup. We find that a game of FoW moves just as fast as 40k.
And you know what else we FoW players can handle? FIRE ARCs! We understand the difference between weapons that point Forward/Left/Right (even rear in a few cases!). Why weapons are placed in turrets (hint, it's not because it "looks kewl").
This whole bolters killing tanks exercise is a little gremlin that lives inside people's heads and rarely comes out into the light. Things like Rubrics - 10 do 6 wounds to a knight with reroll 1s and 2 CP and only if they stood still. This doesn't get you anywhere close to offing a knight.
Those 6 wounds are the average damage that Eight Lascannons do to the same Knight.
8 x .666 x .666 x .5 x 3.5 = 6.2
Knights are designed to withstand lascannons, Rubrics use anti-tank Strat, Knight uses anti lascannon Strat. Unfair comparisson, not to mention shootx2 effects are cancer, because with those 2cp spent on Rubs 5 Slaanesh Havocs with lascannons can do the same thing.
So if souped up bolters arent supposed to kill Knights, and dedicated anti armor isn't supposed to kill knights, what's supposed to kill knights?
vict0988 wrote: Knights are designed to withstand lascannons
That's a big part of the problem, though, isn't it? I mean, it's not just Knights- in addition to AT weapons being generally less effective than they were in previous editions (example: used to be that 3 lascannon hits popped a Rhino, now it's around 5), the heavier things that you should really want lascannons to kill now generally have invulns that render high-AP useless.
I have had this discussion before so I won't go too much into it, but I fall into the camp where I view the event of one army not packing enough anti-tank and then having a bad game for that reason to be generally negative. This will mostly happen against a skew list, Knights are designed to be a skew list, so they should not counter anything very hard and they should not be hard-countered by anything. You might find it appealing that you would be able to crush Timmy's knight list if you had only brought more lascannons, but that doesn't help during the game when you've either brought a lot of lascannons and crush a Knight player or not enough to deal with the Knights and you feel hopeless and weak. The invul save of Knights smooths out the experience, it makes them less susceptible to lascannons while doing nothing to help against anything with AP-0 or -1. I understand that some people want their lascannons to pop Knights real good, because it's an anti-tank weapon and Knights are tanks. I'll leave the discussion on vehicles and invulns on that as far as this thread is concerned.
This whole bolters killing tanks exercise is a little gremlin that lives inside people's heads and rarely comes out into the light. Things like Rubrics - 10 do 6 wounds to a knight with reroll 1s and 2 CP and only if they stood still. This doesn't get you anywhere close to offing a knight.
Those 6 wounds are the average damage that Eight Lascannons do to the same Knight.
8 x .666 x .666 x .5 x 3.5 = 6.2
Knights are designed to withstand lascannons, Rubrics use anti-tank Strat, Knight uses anti lascannon Strat. Unfair comparisson, not to mention shootx2 effects are cancer, because with those 2cp spent on Rubs 5 Slaanesh Havocs with lascannons can do the same thing.
So if souped up bolters arent supposed to kill Knights, and dedicated anti armor isn't supposed to kill knights, what's supposed to kill knights?
I would say that souped up Rubrics are supposed to kill Knights, I thought you were making the point that they were too good compared to lascannon Havocs? Sorry if I was mistaken.
gigasnail wrote: which conversations am i supposed to be rereading? because i'm literally finding nothing supporting even this. any significant damage has been from IEDs/RPGs.
You changed the measure from removed from combat/mission to mobility kill. I never claimed any data backed up mobility kills.
I know of 1 but that's an odd ball Adrams design issue where pouring fuel onto the engine deck causes a fire.
i'm not changing any measure, i'm asking you to present proof of damage via small arms fire (i.e. not RPG's, IED's, or mines), significant enough to actually take a MBT out of the fight because i cannot find any citing any meaningful damage at all. i looked and couldn't find anything of the sort. loosing a vision port is not going to take a tank out of the fight, loosing all of them would but that's a bit of a different thing and good luck pulling it off. the odds of this ever happening in the real would be absurd. the crew would literally have to sit there for an hour, unsupported, and not move or fire, while taking it in the face from infantry at short range. it's absurd.
i did find an account of a direct hit to the top of an abrams from an 82mm mortar which tripped the circuit breaker which killed power (turret control especially is electric). when the CB was reset the vehicle started right back up with no issues. this was interesting to me because we were taught to mass fires into choke points where tanks were stacked up or you had good gun data on a tank that'd gone hull down but we were firing 120mm which is a 35 pound shell and is a bit of a different beast. it was more of a theoretical application, i don't know of anyone that has ever done this in out in the world though i did it a number of times during training exercises (korea for instance was real bad about this. very limited movement options and lots of bridges. fething turkey shoot).
i was surprised the 80 did anything even as incidental as that.
That's a big part of the problem, though, isn't it? I mean, it's not just Knights- in addition to AT weapons being generally less effective than they were in previous editions (example: used to be that 3 lascannon hits popped a Rhino, now it's around 5), the heavier things that you should really want lascannons to kill now generally have invulns that render high-AP useless.
Edition dependent. That was true for 4th (or maybe it was 5th) but not for latter editions.
This whole bolters killing tanks exercise is a little gremlin that lives inside people's heads and rarely comes out into the light. Things like Rubrics - 10 do 6 wounds to a knight with reroll 1s and 2 CP and only if they stood still. This doesn't get you anywhere close to offing a knight.
Those 6 wounds are the average damage that Eight Lascannons do to the same Knight.
8 x .666 x .666 x .5 x 3.5 = 6.2
Well, what's so bad about rapid firing grenade launchers shooting magic, exploding miniature rockets forged in hell to hurt a tank as well as a laser?
This whole bolters killing tanks exercise is a little gremlin that lives inside people's heads and rarely comes out into the light. Things like Rubrics - 10 do 6 wounds to a knight with reroll 1s and 2 CP and only if they stood still. This doesn't get you anywhere close to offing a knight.
Those 6 wounds are the average damage that Eight Lascannons do to the same Knight.
8 x .666 x .666 x .5 x 3.5 = 6.2
Knights are designed to withstand lascannons, Rubrics use anti-tank Strat, Knight uses anti lascannon Strat. Unfair comparisson, not to mention shootx2 effects are cancer, because with those 2cp spent on Rubs 5 Slaanesh Havocs with lascannons can do the same thing.
So if souped up bolters arent supposed to kill Knights, and dedicated anti armor isn't supposed to kill knights, what's supposed to kill knights?
I would say that souped up Rubrics are supposed to kill Knights, I thought you were making the point that they were too good compared to lascannon Havocs? Sorry if I was mistaken.
Daedelus's appeared to be trying to make a point that Rubrics were NOT good, presumably because you should be using dedicated AT weapons. My point was that dedicated AT fire didn't fare any better.
This whole bolters killing tanks exercise is a little gremlin that lives inside people's heads and rarely comes out into the light. Things like Rubrics - 10 do 6 wounds to a knight with reroll 1s and 2 CP and only if they stood still. This doesn't get you anywhere close to offing a knight.
Those 6 wounds are the average damage that Eight Lascannons do to the same Knight.
8 x .666 x .666 x .5 x 3.5 = 6.2
Well, what's so bad about rapid firing grenade launchers shooting magic, exploding miniature rockets forged in hell to hurt a tank as well as a laser?
Read Daedelus's quote. He's trying to say that the Rubrics AREN'T good.
Wow, this thread hurts my brain. And reinforces the idea that unfortunately, 40k has abandoned players like me.
I just can't believe the argument about a "take all comers" list. Yes, I know what the words literally mean. I also know the common usage of the term throughout my years of tabletop gaming outside and inside the GW bubble. Its disingenous to act like there are no other terms in English that their common usages means something different than the literal meaning of the words.
The real issue is what kind of game do you want? Do you want a strategy game based very loosely on war and lore (like say, Stratego), or do want an actual wargame based upon versimilitude and the lore?
GW is going the way of the first. It used to try to be the second.
What I dont like in this thread is people basically telling those people that GW is essentially abandoning (those who want a game based upon the lore and internal consistency) to get lost.
I don't mean to be a downer, but I really do think if people realized that there IS a hobby outside of GW and experienced it, they could hold GW to a higher standard and everyone would benefit.
That's a big part of the problem, though, isn't it? I mean, it's not just Knights- in addition to AT weapons being generally less effective than they were in previous editions (example: used to be that 3 lascannon hits popped a Rhino, now it's around 5), the heavier things that you should really want lascannons to kill now generally have invulns that render high-AP useless.
Edition dependent. That was true for 4th (or maybe it was 5th) but not for latter editions.
That would be 5th they were tougher. Rhinos were basically paper and relied on a quick delivery rush in 4th. The damage table was absurdly unforgiving and why people still thought Necrons were king of AT even though the advent of HP for 6th/7th on cheaper vehicles made them not so much.
Also there are way more shots these days. The fact that twin linked is now double shots rather than re-rolling to hit means vehicle based lascannon firepower has considerably increased.
And the lascannon itself has been left behind by heavier AT weapons.
Tyran wrote: Also there are way more shots these days. The fact that twin linked is now double shots rather than re-rolling to hit means vehicle based lascannon firepower has considerably increased.
Depends. In 3rd-4th a Lascannon hit had about a 30% chance of destroying a Rhino in a single hit.
And the lascannon itself has been left behind by heavier AT weapons.
If, by heavier AT weapons, you actually mean multishot anti-elite weapons. The new Multimelta is welcome, but I'm actually wondering what "heavier" AT weapons you're referring to.
Tyran wrote: Also there are way more shots these days. The fact that twin linked is now double shots rather than re-rolling to hit means vehicle based lascannon firepower has considerably increased.
Depends. In 3rd-4th a Lascannon hit had about a 30% chance of destroying a Rhino in a single hit...
25% in 4e, by my count (2 to glance/6 to wreck or 3+ to pen/5-6 to destroy). Or 15.3% if the Rhino is obscured.
Tyran wrote: Also there are way more shots these days. The fact that twin linked is now double shots rather than re-rolling to hit means vehicle based lascannon firepower has considerably increased.
Depends. In 3rd-4th a Lascannon hit had about a 30% chance of destroying a Rhino in a single hit.
And the lascannon itself has been left behind by heavier AT weapons.
If, by heavier AT weapons, you actually mean multishot anti-elite weapons. The new Multimelta is welcome, but I'm actually wondering what "heavier" AT weapons you're referring to.
Laser destroyers, neutron lasers, volcano lances, railguns.... Trust me, as a proud owner of two Hellforged super heavys I can think of lots of stuff S10 and up with AP-4 or better. They're some of the few things that can really threaten something T9 with a 2+ save.
Tyran wrote: Also there are way more shots these days. The fact that twin linked is now double shots rather than re-rolling to hit means vehicle based lascannon firepower has considerably increased.
Depends. In 3rd-4th a Lascannon hit had about a 30% chance of destroying a Rhino in a single hit.
And the lascannon itself has been left behind by heavier AT weapons.
If, by heavier AT weapons, you actually mean multishot anti-elite weapons. The new Multimelta is welcome, but I'm actually wondering what "heavier" AT weapons you're referring to.
The new necron destroyer, the new doom scythe, the tyranid rupture cannon, the demolisher cannon, the neutron laser, etc.
Tyran wrote: Also there are way more shots these days. The fact that twin linked is now double shots rather than re-rolling to hit means vehicle based lascannon firepower has considerably increased.
Depends. In 3rd-4th a Lascannon hit had about a 30% chance of destroying a Rhino in a single hit...
25% in 4e, by my count (2 to glance/6 to wreck or 3+ to pen/5-6 to destroy). Or 15.3% if the Rhino is obscured.
Penetrating hit kills on a 4+ in 3rd-4th. I forget 5th.
@Tyran + Gadzilla666. Fair enough, but a lot of those things are definitely a lot rarer. Plus things like the Rupture Cannon and Neutron laser come one per-vehicle, while I'm generally looking at 2-4 Lascannons on a unit. They seem to net the same effects in the end. (Esp. with the rerolls I can pump Lascannons with.)
Tyran wrote: Also there are way more shots these days. The fact that twin linked is now double shots rather than re-rolling to hit means vehicle based lascannon firepower has considerably increased.
Depends. In 3rd-4th a Lascannon hit had about a 30% chance of destroying a Rhino in a single hit...
25% in 4e, by my count (2 to glance/6 to wreck or 3+ to pen/5-6 to destroy). Or 15.3% if the Rhino is obscured.
Penetrating hit kills on a 4+ in 3rd-4th. I forget 5th.
Tyran wrote: Also there are way more shots these days. The fact that twin linked is now double shots rather than re-rolling to hit means vehicle based lascannon firepower has considerably increased.
Depends. In 3rd-4th a Lascannon hit had about a 30% chance of destroying a Rhino in a single hit...
25% in 4e, by my count (2 to glance/6 to wreck or 3+ to pen/5-6 to destroy). Or 15.3% if the Rhino is obscured.
Penetrating hit kills on a 4+ in 3rd-4th. I forget 5th.
only for Ordnance Penetrating
Look it up. I just did 4+ to kill, non-Ordinance. Ordinance just had a particularly spectacular "destroyed" result.
5th edition moved to a single damage table with "destroyed" on 5+, and made Ordinance and Glances modifiers to the table.
Tyran wrote: Also there are way more shots these days. The fact that twin linked is now double shots rather than re-rolling to hit means vehicle based lascannon firepower has considerably increased.
Depends. In 3rd-4th a Lascannon hit had about a 30% chance of destroying a Rhino in a single hit...
25% in 4e, by my count (2 to glance/6 to wreck or 3+ to pen/5-6 to destroy). Or 15.3% if the Rhino is obscured.
Penetrating hit kills on a 4+ in 3rd-4th. I forget 5th.
only for Ordnance Penetrating
Look it up. I just did 4+ to kill, non-Ordinance. Ordinance just had a particularly spectacular "destroyed" result.
5th edition moved to a single damage table with "destroyed" on 5+, and made Ordinance and Glances modifiers to the table.
ahhh fair enough. I guess I thought Vehicle Annihilated pushed everything down 1.
Tyran wrote: Also there are way more shots these days. The fact that twin linked is now double shots rather than re-rolling to hit means vehicle based lascannon firepower has considerably increased.
Depends. In 3rd-4th a Lascannon hit had about a 30% chance of destroying a Rhino in a single hit...
25% in 4e, by my count (2 to glance/6 to wreck or 3+ to pen/5-6 to destroy). Or 15.3% if the Rhino is obscured.
Penetrating hit kills on a 4+ in 3rd-4th. I forget 5th.
only for Ordnance Penetrating
Look it up. I just did 4+ to kill, non-Ordinance. Ordinance just had a particularly spectacular "destroyed" result.
5th edition moved to a single damage table with "destroyed" on 5+, and made Ordinance and Glances modifiers to the table.
Which made a massive difference.
in 4th 3 lascannons hits were needed to destroy a rhino, while in 5th 5 hits were needed.
Tyran wrote: Also there are way more shots these days. The fact that twin linked is now double shots rather than re-rolling to hit means vehicle based lascannon firepower has considerably increased.
Depends. In 3rd-4th a Lascannon hit had about a 30% chance of destroying a Rhino in a single hit...
25% in 4e, by my count (2 to glance/6 to wreck or 3+ to pen/5-6 to destroy). Or 15.3% if the Rhino is obscured.
Penetrating hit kills on a 4+ in 3rd-4th. I forget 5th.
only for Ordnance Penetrating
Look it up. I just did 4+ to kill, non-Ordinance. Ordinance just had a particularly spectacular "destroyed" result.
5th edition moved to a single damage table with "destroyed" on 5+, and made Ordinance and Glances modifiers to the table.
Which made a massive difference.
in 4th 3 lascannons hits were needed to destroy a rhino, while in 5th 5 hits were needed.
Not just destroy but keep in mind that if you immobilize a Rhino it's nothing but a Storm Bolter. Was immobilization factored into this?
Tyran wrote: And the lascannon itself has been left behind by heavier AT weapons.
And heavier AT weapons have been left behind by spammable mid-strength, AP1-2, multishot weapons. That's the core of the problem here.
Tyran wrote: Although on the other hand, Rhinos were one of the vehicles that were given the best stats in 8th. Most other vehicles weren't that buffed.
Tyran wrote: And the lascannon itself has been left behind by heavier AT weapons.
And heavier AT weapons have been left behind by spammable mid-strength, AP1-2, multishot weapons. That's the core of the problem here.
Tyran wrote: Although on the other hand, Rhinos were one of the vehicles that were given the best stats in 8th. Most other vehicles weren't that buffed.
Tougher than a Carnifex.
As many attacks(with shock assault) as the entire CWE codex bar 2 entries..
Insectum7 wrote: Read Daedelus's quote. He's trying to say that the Rubrics AREN'T good.
I'm not saying they're not good. I'm saying they're not moving mountains.
You did the LC comparison, but you didn't put the same effort into it. What if you double shot those with VOTLW? 12 damage from 48" without having to stand still.
Insectum7 wrote: Read Daedelus's quote. He's trying to say that the Rubrics AREN'T good.
I'm not saying they're not good. I'm saying they're not moving mountains.
You did the LC comparison, but you didn't put the same effort into it. What if you double shot those with VOTLW? 12 damage from 48" without having to stand still.
You also didn't duplicate Yukoshiro's knight killing WOMBO COMBO. It involves 20 rubrics and a lot more than those two strategems if I've worked it out correctly.
It was also like 700+ points worth of stuff and relied on not having to move your rubrics, 2CP, and three psychic powers, one of them at WC8. It definitely wasn't overpowered, it was just a nifty trick to allow you to threaten T8 if you really needed to in a list that otherwise would struggle with it.
There are so many better ways to kill knights much more cheaply in other lists without nearly so much setup - smash captains, repentia, etc etc.
You also didn't duplicate Yukoshiro's knight killing WOMBO COMBO. It involves 20 rubrics and a lot more than those two strategems if I've worked it out correctly.
I'd never even consider using it, because it's terribly risky. Maybe when they're W2, but then they'll be more points.
yukishiro1 wrote: It was also like 700+ points worth of stuff and relied on not having to move your rubrics, 2CP, and three psychic powers, one of them at WC8. It definitely wasn't overpowered, it was just a nifty trick to allow you to threaten T8 if you really needed to in a list that otherwise would struggle with it.
There are so many better ways to kill knights much more cheaply in other lists without nearly so much setup - smash captains, repentia, etc etc.
Shriveling Pox from the Poxbringer + Death Hex + Prescience + Vets + Infernal Fusillade + rerolling 1s from a nearby HQ, probably a daemon prince. Am I right?
Yeah, though you can probably do without one of prescience or the reroll 1s and still do enough to kill it, assuming you have something else that can plink the last few wounds off, or if you softened it up with a smite or two first.
It wasn't like that list was tabling Knights or anything, it just gave you the capability to kill one or maybe two in an unorthodox and interesting way.
yukishiro1 wrote: Yeah, though you can probably do without one of prescience or the reroll 1s and still do enough to kill it, assuming you have something else that can plink the last few wounds off, or if you softened it up with a smite or two first.
It wasn't like that list was tabling Knights or anything, it just gave you the capability to kill one or maybe two in an unorthodox and interesting way.
It's an effective method for killing a knight, but too many moving parts for me. I'd rather pound one with accelerator cannon AE shells and quad lascannons until I get within demolisher cannon range to finish it off. A Diabolic Strength juiced double chainclaw Contemptor works great as well in a more conventional list once you've knocked some wounds off of it.
Oh, and that combo averages just under 26 wounds against a knight. Against a T9 2+ target it'll get you just under 13, 10 if Benediction of Darkness is active (and it will be). You want to kill a real super heavy? Better bring some real anti-tank.
Insectum7 wrote: Read Daedelus's quote. He's trying to say that the Rubrics AREN'T good.
I'm not saying they're not good. I'm saying they're not moving mountains.
You did the LC comparison, but you didn't put the same effort into it. What if you double shot those with VOTLW? 12 damage from 48" without having to stand still.
I am not aware of a chaos unit that can double shoot with 8 lascannons, and as loyalists I can't double shoot.
My default Knight-killing build is a simple 10 Razorbacks with Twin Las and HK missiles. My fun build is just TH/SS Terminators, which can kill four Gallants in a CC phase.
Because the Proposed Rules system is for talking about actual proposed rules, while this forum lends itself more to philosophy and conceptual discussion. As for it never coming back? Never is a long time, my friend.
But this thread isn't in the Proposed Rules subforum but in the General Discussion, and it is clearly about stat changes, not base mechanics. It may come back, but it would require both a new edition and an entire reset of the ruleset, so at least not for a few years and even then it would be very unlikely.
I think that AoS has been a bit of a blueprint for 40k. AoS was a massive switch from simulation to board game, and some of the mechanics there were then implemented in 40k. This is what GWS envisioned, at some point, for their games. I do not know if this paradigm has been abandoned, since we didn't get rid off toughness altogether like AoS (I suspect yukishiro1 would actually prefer the no toughness approach in AoS).
Personally, I also prefer the AV style and not having command points. Command points have become an umbrella for anything "gamey", like out of the blue some units dealing "mortal wounds" on 6s, or for whatever reason bolter rounds being more effective at shooting armored targets.
Those "stratagems" (or tricks and gamey arcade stuff for others), have increasingly become the focus on the battle. In my opinion, the gotcha moments they create far outweight the "feel bad" that some people mentioned. You see that unit over there, that you have kept an eye on and considered in your battle plan? Well now they took the "power up" and hence charge at far longer distances / have an abnormal rate of fire.
It is a pure gotcha moment it rewards knowing the "meta" (current hot tricks) over having an overall decent assessment of the capabilities of the opposing army. I cringed hard when I read about the IF aggressor + mortal combo wombo.
I very much prefer army composition to be dictated by some "lore coherent" rules on what a good balanced army ought to have (traditional AT, small arms) within the warhammer universe to represent combined arms tactics (which may be a bit more skewed for some factions or by player preference). And for the army to play according to some reasonable expectation of how the crazy 40k units would behave.
It seems that GWS has noticed this divide and is creating two lines: i) specialist games for those who want simulation (HH, Old World), ii) board games for those who want far more abstract approaches (9th edition, AoS). I don't it is simpler to play 9th or AoS, they just added bloat via special rules and stratagems. The sad part is when then they proceed to sideline i) to pour resources into ii).
It is also inevitable that as an IP evolves, olds fans eventually drop by disliking the changes while new fans are introduced to the new system.
This has been true for 40k for a lot of time, you can find old fans that are of the opinion that 40k shouldn't have moved from Rogue Trader, 2nd ed, 3rd ed, etc.
This also is true for any multi-generational IP, books, comics, movies, videogames, etc.
Insectum7 wrote: You mean as an IP dumbs itself down for profit. . .
So you have all Rogue Trader era models?
I have an entire army of original plastic Tyranid Warriors. I have an entire company of Rogue Trader Beakies. I have 40 plastic Squats, and another 40 original plastic Guardsmen. I have 4 Rogue Trader Land Raiders, 2 Rhinos, and a Land Speeder. I have a small but growing collection of RT Chaos Marines, and three of the original Bloodthirsters. I also have many later models that are in good taste.
I d argue that removing rules and adding dozens of stratagems makes it more cumbersome to play. Stratagems are ad hoc rules, at the end of the day; arcade combos that often result in feel bad moments. Wombo combo gotcha!
Plus of course they are all extremely specific and many of them are useless (bloat). They even rotate the meta stratagems via nerfs and buffs so it is like season cards. It is almost like GWS wanted to have metas / flavors of the month, and top / bottom armies.
Take GK, and their PA, and how combo wombos were integral to their new found power (buffing paladin bombs).
If you want an example of how board gamification changes a game check AoS, with pure health bars (a goblin toothpick can hurt a dragon); mortal wounds, and the removal of strategic thinks like flanking for exactly what?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Ps - couldn’t resist...can 100k goblin toothpicks hurt a dragon because of the odds that they poke him in THAT lose scale? (Cough Smaug cough).
I think that AoS has been a bit of a blueprint for 40k. AoS was a massive switch from simulation to board game, and some of the mechanics there were then implemented in 40k. This is what GWS envisioned, at some point, for their games. I do not know if this paradigm has been abandoned, since we didn't get rid off toughness altogether like AoS (I suspect yukishiro1 would actually prefer the no toughness approach in AoS).
The sad thing is, GW seem to have shoehorned a pile of dodgy AoS nonsense into 40k, yet failed to import a few things that might have actually improved the game.
e.g. AoS seems to have a much more sensible structuring of Chaos forces - wherein they're split based on their allegiance to a particular god. So rather than having a separate book for Chaos Daemons, which itself functions basically as four completely separate factions, you'd have a book for Death Guard + Nurgle Daemons, a book for Thousand Sons + Tzeentch Daemons etc..
Then you've got the Command abilities, which seem like a far better and more grounded way to insert a CP/Stratagem mechanic into the game. But no, instead we just get to try and play 40k and Yugioh at the same time.
I suppose the biggest deal though is that Warhammer Fantasy was never very good in the "realism" department. Steam tanks and dragons could always be hurt by arrows or swords (aside from the brief stint in 7th edition where the steam tank was T10 instead of T6).
Shifting from "Arrows and swords can hurt your steam tank" to "arrows and swords can hurt your steam tank, but more easily" is less painful of a verisimilitude jump than "small arms and combat blades can't hurt your tank at all" to "small arms and combat blades aren't even really wasting their time shooting at you." I mean what, you only need 18 lasgun hits to put a wound on t8 3+?
I suppose the biggest deal though is that Warhammer Fantasy was never very good in the "realism" department. Steam tanks and dragons could always be hurt by arrows or swords (aside from the brief stint in 7th edition where the steam tank was T10 instead of T6).
Shifting from "Arrows and swords can hurt your steam tank" to "arrows and swords can hurt your steam tank, but more easily" is less painful of a verisimilitude jump than "small arms and combat blades can't hurt your tank at all" to "small arms and combat blades aren't even really wasting their time shooting at you." I mean what, you only need 18 lasgun hits to put a wound on t8 3+?
That's true. I mean, I imagine a lot of monsters got easier to wound in 8th with small arms due to the change to the wounding table, but that seems to have drawn far fewer complaints than the removal of AVs for vehicles.
vipoid wrote: That's true. I mean, I imagine a lot of monsters got easier to wound in 8th with small arms due to the change to the wounding table, but that seems to have drawn far fewer complaints than the removal of AVs for vehicles.
It was less of a jump for monsters because they tended to have lower toughness to begin with, and there weren't many that were outright immune to anything S4 or lower. In the transition they got a lot more wounds, which offset the increased vulnerability.
Example- Carnifex. Formerly T7, 4 wounds. Now T7, 8 wounds. Bolters used to wound on 6s, now they wound on 5s. So in theory, the Carnifex is just as durable against bolters as it used to be. In practice, widespread easy access to AP and other force multipliers means Carnifexes die quickly and badly; but that's more of a game-wide issue than an MC-specific one.
I suppose the biggest deal though is that Warhammer Fantasy was never very good in the "realism" department. Steam tanks and dragons could always be hurt by arrows or swords (aside from the brief stint in 7th edition where the steam tank was T10 instead of T6).
Shifting from "Arrows and swords can hurt your steam tank" to "arrows and swords can hurt your steam tank, but more easily" is less painful of a verisimilitude jump than "small arms and combat blades can't hurt your tank at all" to "small arms and combat blades aren't even really wasting their time shooting at you." I mean what, you only need 18 lasgun hits to put a wound on t8 3+?
That's true. I mean, I imagine a lot of monsters got easier to wound in 8th with small arms due to the change to the wounding table, but that seems to have drawn far fewer complaints than the removal of AVs for vehicles.
Yes and no. The largest T8 monsters got easier to wound (remmeber that T8 was exclusive to superheavy monsters). But the average monster was T6 and thus already vulnerable to small arms fire. Moreover the wound inflation made the smaller monsters far more resistnat to small arms, e.g the Carnifex went from needing 72 lasguns hits to die to needing the double, 144.
vipoid wrote: That's true. I mean, I imagine a lot of monsters got easier to wound in 8th with small arms due to the change to the wounding table, but that seems to have drawn far fewer complaints than the removal of AVs for vehicles.
It was less of a jump for monsters because they tended to have lower toughness to begin with, and there weren't many that were outright immune to anything S4 or lower. In the transition they got a lot more wounds, which offset the increased vulnerability.
Example- Carnifex. Formerly T7, 4 wounds. Now T7, 8 wounds. Bolters used to wound on 6s, now they wound on 5s. So in theory, the Carnifex is just as durable against bolters as it used to be. In practice, widespread easy access to AP and other force multipliers means Carnifexes die quickly and badly; but that's more of a game-wide issue than an MC-specific one.
The Carnifex was T6 although in 4th it had an upgrade for T7.
I suppose the biggest deal though is that Warhammer Fantasy was never very good in the "realism" department. Steam tanks and dragons could always be hurt by arrows or swords (aside from the brief stint in 7th edition where the steam tank was T10 instead of T6).
Shifting from "Arrows and swords can hurt your steam tank" to "arrows and swords can hurt your steam tank, but more easily" is less painful of a verisimilitude jump than "small arms and combat blades can't hurt your tank at all" to "small arms and combat blades aren't even really wasting their time shooting at you." I mean what, you only need 18 lasgun hits to put a wound on t8 3+?
That's true. I mean, I imagine a lot of monsters got easier to wound in 8th with small arms due to the change to the wounding table, but that seems to have drawn far fewer complaints than the removal of AVs for vehicles.
Well, they had other things which made a lot of them quite noncompetitive in 8th. Highly accurate Cannons made using most monsters against Dwarfs and Empire a big risk (especially Dwarf cannons with flaming shots from runes to shut down Regeneration).
So basically whilst the small stuff was able to hurt them a bit easier, the big stuff which was already very dangerous also became even more dangerous. Save or die spells could also be an issue, especially Pit of Shades as most monsters had quite low Initiative.
If they had brought in the joint profile for heroes on monsters that they did for the End Times at the beginning of 8th then I think we'd have seen more monsters on the table, even if it was only mounted monsters (dragons, manticores etc.) rather than singular monsters (Giants).
Tyran wrote: The Carnifex was T6 although in 4th it had an upgrade for T7.
Oh yup, my bad. It was the wounding on 6s with bolters that I remembered; lasguns also wounded on 6s, but still wound on 6s, so I guess the Carnifex has actually gotten twice as hard to kill with flashlights as before.
I suppose the biggest deal though is that Warhammer Fantasy was never very good in the "realism" department. Steam tanks and dragons could always be hurt by arrows or swords (aside from the brief stint in 7th edition where the steam tank was T10 instead of T6).
Shifting from "Arrows and swords can hurt your steam tank" to "arrows and swords can hurt your steam tank, but more easily" is less painful of a verisimilitude jump than "small arms and combat blades can't hurt your tank at all" to "small arms and combat blades aren't even really wasting their time shooting at you." I mean what, you only need 18 lasgun hits to put a wound on t8 3+?
That's true. I mean, I imagine a lot of monsters got easier to wound in 8th with small arms due to the change to the wounding table, but that seems to have drawn far fewer complaints than the removal of AVs for vehicles.
Yes and no. The largest T8 monsters got easier to wound (remmeber that T8 was exclusive to superheavy monsters). But the average monster was T6 and thus already vulnerable to small arms fire. Moreover the wound inflation made the smaller monsters far more resistnat to small arms, e.g the Carnifex went from needing 72 lasguns hits to die to needing the double, 144.
.
Perhaps, but a Lascannon used to only do 1W per hit against a Carnifex and cover meant a 4++ and sometimes more. Now cover can't help nearly as much, and multi-damage weapons can chew through the fex much, much faster.
Yes, its very annoying when everything has some kind of reroll, invuln or extra save so when you miss your shot or do damage, you haven't really yet. More wounds, less "gotcha" saves/rerolls would be nice, but maybe im just a salty ork player who doesnt get either
Insectum7 wrote: Perhaps, but a Lascannon used to only do 1W per hit against a Carnifex and cover meant a 4++ and sometimes more. Now cover can't help nearly as much, and multi-damage weapons can chew through the fex much, much faster.
But no one used lascannons, it was always plasma and latter grav, the former is pretty much the same and the latter could chew through a Carnifex even faster than current multi-damage weapons.
And even lascannons haven't improved that much, it went from 4.8 hits to kill to 4.11 hits to kill. And they are actually sturdier against missile launchers, 4.8 hits to kill to 5.14 hits to kill.
Billagio wrote: Yes, its very annoying when everything has some kind of reroll, invuln or extra save so when you miss your shot or do damage, you haven't really yet. More wounds, less "gotcha" saves/rerolls would be nice, but maybe im just a salty ork player who doesnt get either
I think invulnerables are especially problematic on large vehicles/monsters with good armour. These are exactly the sort of targets that meltaguns should be effective against, yet the presence of invulnerable saves means that their extra AP over Lascannons and Plasma is completely wasted.
Invulnerable saves lower the value of AT while raising the value of mid-ap weapons. It would be one very obvious place to go if you wanted to actually address the fact that mid-tier weapon profiles are often more efficient than dedicated AT.
Also increasing the armor on vehicles and monsters (so 2+ would be the new standard) would increase the value of high AP weapons and reduce their vulnerability to mid-ap weapons.
Tyran wrote: Also increasing the armor on vehicles and monsters (so 2+ would be the new standard) would increase the value of high AP weapons and reduce their vulnerability to mid-ap weapons.
I think you could make a case for treating monsters and vehicles slightly differently- give vehicles the 2+, give monsters more wounds. That would make them feel different from one another, with vehicles demanding high-AP weapons while monsters soak up damage.
Tyran wrote: Also increasing the armor on vehicles and monsters (so 2+ would be the new standard) would increase the value of high AP weapons and reduce their vulnerability to mid-ap weapons.
I think you could make a case for treating monsters and vehicles slightly differently- give vehicles the 2+, give monsters more wounds. That would make them feel different from one another, with vehicles demanding high-AP weapons while monsters soak up damage.
I'm a fan of this, but while we're talking Tyranids, you'd have to fix their degradations IMO. Upping wounds means you've got to (in principle) up the threshold for when you degrade. Now, if Nids didn't degrade in such a fething punishing way I'd be okay with that... but this is all rather tangential already
Tyran wrote: Also increasing the armor on vehicles and monsters (so 2+ would be the new standard) would increase the value of high AP weapons and reduce their vulnerability to mid-ap weapons.
I think you could make a case for treating monsters and vehicles slightly differently- give vehicles the 2+, give monsters more wounds. That would make them feel different from one another, with vehicles demanding high-AP weapons while monsters soak up damage.
I would prefer a unit per unit basis depending on the lore. Eldar monsters need less wounds but more toughness and armor. Tyranids in general should have more wounds (although I would make the case the Tyrannofex and the Carnifex deserve a 2+ Save) and Tau monsters should stop being monsters.
Insectum7 wrote: Perhaps, but a Lascannon used to only do 1W per hit against a Carnifex and cover meant a 4++ and sometimes more. Now cover can't help nearly as much, and multi-damage weapons can chew through the fex much, much faster.
But no one used lascannons, it was always plasma and latter grav, the former is pretty much the same and the latter could chew through a Carnifex even faster than current multi-damage weapons.
And even lascannons haven't improved that much, it went from 4.8 hits to kill to 4.11 hits to kill. And they are actually sturdier against missile launchers, 4.8 hits to kill to 5.14 hits to kill.
No one used Lascannons from 3rd through 7th? Yeah that doesn't check out.
Also recall that Twin Las means two Lascannons now, instead of one with rerolls. (And usually it's two with rerolls, now)
AND, in 3rd and 4th, at least, Carnifexes could be given a 2+ save, giving them a 2+ save vs. Missile Launchers. With 5th came the 4++ cover save.
No one used Lascannons from 3rd through 7th? Yeah that doesn't check out.
Also recall that Twin Las means two Lascannons now, instead of one with rerolls. (And usually it's two with rerolls, now)
AND, in 3rd and 4th, at least, Carnifexes could be given a 2+ save, giving them a 2+ save vs. Missile Launchers. With 5th came the 4++ cover save.
Not to kill Carnifexes, plasma was what was used to slaughter monsters. And with 5th came Cruddace who utterly crippled Tyranids. Even the current codex, while still on the weaker end, is considerably better than the 5th (and 6th) one.
No one used Lascannons from 3rd through 7th? Yeah that doesn't check out.
Also recall that Twin Las means two Lascannons now, instead of one with rerolls. (And usually it's two with rerolls, now)
AND, in 3rd and 4th, at least, Carnifexes could be given a 2+ save, giving them a 2+ save vs. Missile Launchers. With 5th came the 4++ cover save.
Not to kill Carnifexes, plasma was what was used to slaughter monsters. And with 5th came Cruddace who utterly crippled Tyranids. Even the current codex, while still on the weaker end, is considerably better than the 5th (and 6th) one.
Not to defend post-4th Nids, but I played against many, many MCs with a 2++ toe-cover save.
(also definitely used Lascannons against Nid MCs, because what else are you shoot your Lascannons at in a Nid army.)
Lol, in this thread are people exploring the differences between vehicles and monsters - while ignoring all the rules from earlier editions that neatly divided vehicles and monsters.
No one used Lascannons from 3rd through 7th? Yeah that doesn't check out.
Also recall that Twin Las means two Lascannons now, instead of one with rerolls. (And usually it's two with rerolls, now)
AND, in 3rd and 4th, at least, Carnifexes could be given a 2+ save, giving them a 2+ save vs. Missile Launchers. With 5th came the 4++ cover save.
Not to kill Carnifexes, plasma was what was used to slaughter monsters. And with 5th came Cruddace who utterly crippled Tyranids. Even the current codex, while still on the weaker end, is considerably better than the 5th (and 6th) one.
Not to defend post-4th Nids, but I played against many, many MCs with a 2++ toe-cover save.
(also definitely used Lascannons against Nid MCs, because what else are you shoot your Lascannons at in a Nid army.)
That probably was the Tau Ghostheel.
Unit1126PLL wrote:Lol, in this thread are people exploring the differences between vehicles and monsters - while ignoring all the rules from earlier editions that neatly divided vehicles and monsters.
And as I said before, I really disliked that division. I still dislike the remnants of it in the current rules.
Tyran wrote: And as I said before, I really disliked that division. I still dislike the remnants of it in the current rules.
And as I've said before, I loved that division. An Elephant (or tyrannosaurus rex, or blue whale) has more in common with a human being than an M1 Abrams. The rules for monsters should be closer to those of humans than those of tanks, and I think earlier editions accomplished this handily.
The problem was when they made things that were closer to tanks (i.e. Riptide) into monsters, and for this I blame GW's proven inability to understand their own abstractions.
No one used Lascannons from 3rd through 7th? Yeah that doesn't check out.
Also recall that Twin Las means two Lascannons now, instead of one with rerolls. (And usually it's two with rerolls, now)
AND, in 3rd and 4th, at least, Carnifexes could be given a 2+ save, giving them a 2+ save vs. Missile Launchers. With 5th came the 4++ cover save.
Not to kill Carnifexes, plasma was what was used to slaughter monsters. And with 5th came Cruddace who utterly crippled Tyranids. Even the current codex, while still on the weaker end, is considerably better than the 5th (and 6th) one.
Not to defend post-4th Nids, but I played against many, many MCs with a 2++ toe-cover save.
(also definitely used Lascannons against Nid MCs, because what else are you shoot your Lascannons at in a Nid army.)
That probably was the Tau Ghostheel.
No sir, definitely Nids. Possibly from Malanthrope. I recall facing a Heirodule receiving a 2++ IN FRONT of a ruin because it's back heel was in it.
And I have the extra painted Librarians that I used for Librarian Conclave in order to fish for the Ignores Cover Psychic power to prove it. haha
And as I've said before, I loved that division. An Elephant (or tyrannosaurus rex, or blue whale) has more in common with a human being than an M1 Abrams. The rules for monsters should be closer to those of humans than those of tanks, and I think earlier editions accomplished this handily.
The problem was when they made things that were closer to tanks (i.e. Riptide) into monsters, and for this I blame GW's proven inability to understand their own abstractions.
And a Tyranid, Daemon or Eldar monster has nothing in common with an Elephant (or tyrannosaurus rex, or blue whale).
And as I've said before, I loved that division. An Elephant (or tyrannosaurus rex, or blue whale) has more in common with a human being than an M1 Abrams. The rules for monsters should be closer to those of humans than those of tanks, and I think earlier editions accomplished this handily.
The problem was when they made things that were closer to tanks (i.e. Riptide) into monsters, and for this I blame GW's proven inability to understand their own abstractions.
And a Tyranid, Daemon or Eldar monster has nothing in common with an Elephant (or tyrannosaurus rex, or blue whale).
A Tyranid has more in common with any wildlife on earth (save perhaps slime molds) than it does an M1 tank. A Daemon can, in fact, have more in common with an M1 tank than an elephant - and unsurprisingly, the ones that do were treated like vehicles (soul grinders). An Eldar monster is the only one I can agree with you on, and lo and behold they were vehicles (Eldar dreadnoughts) until getting turned into monsters (using presumably whatever insane logic they later applied to the Riptide as well). In fact, I wouldn't even call them monsters. They really were more like Eldar dreadnoughts.
A Tyranid has more in common with any wildlife on earth (save perhaps slime molds) than it does an M1 tank. A Daemon can, in fact, have more in common with an M1 tank than an elephant - and unsurprisingly, the ones that do were treated like vehicles (soul grinders). An Eldar monster is the only one I can agree with you on, and lo and behold they were vehicles (Eldar dreadnoughts) until getting turned into monsters (using presumably whatever insane logic they later applied to the Riptide as well). In fact, I wouldn't even call them monsters. They really were more like Eldar dreadnoughts, which was their old name.
You can blow up the head of a Tyranid monster and it will continue fighting because secondary brains, and of course (in the lore) it is immune to small arms fire, that is quite unlike any wildlife on earth.
And as I said before, the AV value was notably unrealistic because that isn't how armor penetration works.
EDIT: Also the difference meant that weapons that were useless against one were effective against the other and viceversa. Which was also not particularly realistic.
A Tyranid has more in common with any wildlife on earth (save perhaps slime molds) than it does an M1 tank.
A Daemon can, in fact, have more in common with an M1 tank than an elephant - and unsurprisingly, the ones that do were treated like vehicles (soul grinders).
An Eldar monster is the only one I can agree with you on, and lo and behold they were vehicles (Eldar dreadnoughts) until getting turned into monsters (using presumably whatever insane logic they later applied to the Riptide as well). In fact, I wouldn't even call them monsters. They really were more like Eldar dreadnoughts, which was their old name.
You can blow up the head of a Tyranid monster and it will continue fighting because secondary brains, and of course (in the lore) it is immune to small arms fire, that is quite unlike any wildlife on earth.
Maybe, but Sicarius's "Decapitating Strike" hath felled me many a Nid MC.
Racerguy180 wrote: umm, unless you have a M2 browning, no ak47 or m16 or FN Fal would do anything except piss off an elephant.
I've seen otherwise. Most poachers in Zimbabwe use antiquated black powder rifles and yes, they kill elephants. I think Hollywood gives people a skewed view of what bullets are capable of.
But that's just it, isn't it? 40K doesn't run on realism, it runs on over-the-top fantasy. If the fluff tells me that a walking bio-tank covered in chitinous armor plating is immune to small arms, then I can accept that in face value, and it doesn't seem that different from the durability of an armored vehicle. The consolidation of vehicles into the normal profile seemed and still seems like a good idea to me; there are just some nuances (like armor facing) that were stripped out during the transition and could still be added back to the current system, and if we did want monsters and vehicles to feel different in terms of resilience, that could be accomplished through stat adjustments.
Except that cover for monsters required the creature to be obscured by the terrain, touching wasn't enough.
Ummm. . . nope. "Models in Ruins get a 4+ cover save regardless of whether or not they are 25% obscured." Craters were similar, iirc.
Find me the rule that says so. I've got he 7th ed rulebook right here.
The 7th ed FAQ.
Q: Some pieces of terrain (woods, ruins, craters, etc.) provide a cover save to a models even if they are not 25% obscured. Does this really include large models like Monstrous Creatures?
A: No. Just like Vehicles, Monstrous Creatures and Gargantuan Creatures are not obscured simply for being inside terrain such as woods or ruins.
Except that cover for monsters required the creature to be obscured by the terrain, touching wasn't enough.
Ummm. . . nope. "Models in Ruins get a 4+ cover save regardless of whether or not they are 25% obscured." Craters were similar, iirc.
Find me the rule that says so. I've got he 7th ed rulebook right here.
The 7th ed FAQ.
Q: Some pieces of terrain (woods, ruins, craters, etc.) provide a cover save to a models even if they are not 25% obscured. Does this really include large models like Monstrous Creatures?
A: No. Just like Vehicles, Monstrous Creatures and Gargantuan Creatures are not obscured simply for being inside terrain such as woods or ruins.
Hmm. . . I wonder what the date is on that. Either my friend was pulling one over me or those Faqs came a little later into the edition.
In fact the FAQ collection for 7th that I just found online does not have that particular rule.
Edit 2:
The "Final FAQ" provided by the Warhammer Community in Nov 2016 has that rule. 7Th started in 2014. I'm going to assume that the MC Cover rule came out after my friend quit 40K suspiciously around the same time I began spamming Grav Cannons. In any case, that 2++ cover save on MCs was definitely a "thing".
