SolarCross wrote: Just for fun, how would this be as a scenario for recreating a WW1 battle in 40k?
Each side takes a list comprising entirely of troops and aegis defence lines, enough to fill the entire deployment zone. Like a Green Tide or something.
In addition each side gets a number of off-map barrages it can throw down on the enemy deployment zone for the first 6 turns. Casualties from the barrages are kept secret. Then on turn 7 the players roll to seize the initiative. Whoever wins the roll can choose to "go over the top" which means leaving his deployment zone and advancing towards the enemy deployment zone or not depending on how lucky he thinks he has been with his barrages.
VP is awarded for making it to the enemy deployment zone. If no one actually goes over the top then whoever has the most soldiers left over from the barrages wins.
That's not really how that worked in WWI (in game terms the side being bombarded like that was the defender), but sure, let's give it a try.
Kodos, you're displaying terrible knowledge of World War II.
Light, medium, and heavy tanks existed obviously.
But SPA and TD were also recognized categories. The United States, Soviet Union, Britain, and Germany all had specific doctrine governing the employment of self-propelled artillery and tank destroyers that were distinct from each other, assault gun doctrine, and line tank doctrine, indicating they were aware of the differences.
Certain vehicles were even called Tank Destroyers by their respective nations, such as the U.S. M10, the British Archer, the German Jagdpanther. These were distinguished from assault guns (where their relevant nation had them) such as the American 105mm Sherman, British Churchill Gun Carriage, and the German Brummbar. The Soviet Union blended tank destroyer and assault guns into the SU series (e.g. SU-100 TD and SU-152 assault gun) but still kep them distinct from light and medium tanks (T-series) and heavy tanks (bespoke names such as KV or IS).
SPA was also designated differently - the U.S. used the Gun Motor Carriage (GMC) designation, for example, while vehicles like the Hummel or Wespe in Germany did not receive PZKPFW designations, instead receiving the PzFH (Panzerfeldhaubitze, Armored Field Howitzer).
You're just wrong about World War II. The only concepts that have changed since World War II are the IFV/APC distinction (which grew out of world war II mechanized infantry that had no such distinction. The distinction was created in the mid-Cold War to differentiate between battle-taxi style armored infantry and armored infantry whose vehicles were armed and armored to fight alongside them in a line engagement) and the light/medium/heavy tank ideas being replaced by the cavalry (or reconnaissance) vehicle/main battle tank distinction.
40k is not a tank game. It has some factions with a lot of tank options (IG as the most prominent one), and it also has factions with little to no tanks, or vehicles for that matter. And even the factions that have a lot of vehicles can be played as pure infantry forces.
Seeking to have a realistic tank game runs the risk of alienating the factions and playstyles that do not have tanks.
Tyran wrote: 40k is not a tank game. It has some factions with a lot of tank options (IG as the most prominent one), and it also has factions with little to no tanks, or vehicles for that matter. And even the factions that have a lot of vehicles can be played as pure infantry forces.
Seeking to have a realistic tank game runs the risk of alienating the factions and playstyles that do not have tanks.
Why can't a game have both realistic tank mechanics and good other mechanics as well?
Many other games (in fact, every other game I can think of set in an era where tanks are a possibility at all) are also tank-optional for all their forces, and yet manage to include a realistic-ish (moreso than 40k at any rate) depiction of tanks when they do show up.
well, if you think the german anti-infantry tank was the only thing around than yes
All the tanks of WW1 were Infantry Tanks. An infantry tank is kitted out for resisting infantry fire and attacking infantry. The reason for the lack of anti-tank specialisations then is that tanks were a brand new thing on the battlefield and only the allies fielded them in any significant numbers. You don't need Tank Destroyers unless there are tanks to destroy. The iconic WW1 tank, the Mark IV, is as much an Infantry Tank as the German's answer. If you are being generous you could call it a MBT since it was kitted out with puny 6 pound naval guns instead of machine guns. It's primary target was enemy machine gun nests though. That kind of target amounts to an entrenched infantry position.
Seeking to have a realistic tank game runs the risk of alienating the factions and playstyles that do not have tanks.
At 28mm scale 40k is not going to be realistic anything game. 40k is meant to be evocative rather than realistic and being that it wants to be a mishmash of everything and it absolutely does have many tank-like model options for almost all factions you really do want evocative tank rules. As long as all factions have access to some kind of anti-tank then I don't see the problem. Even a pure infantry faction could still take on tanks with panzerfaust equivalents.
Because the 40k universe simply isn't built for realistic tank mechanics.
Look at WW2; (very rough idea)
Infantry anti-tank had an effective range that could accurately be described as "pissing distance". Even then you'd have 1-2 such weapons per squad
For any engagements longer than that, large anti-tank weapons were necessary. Whether those were towed, turreted, armoured, or unarmoured.
Compared to 40k; (very varied across armies)
Infantry AT is often the same guns as those mounted on tanks.
There are many squads dedicated to these weapons, sometimes long range and sometimes short range.
Large, single shot, anti-tank weapons similar to those in WW2 just aren't a thing for many factions. Space Marines have none, Imperial Guard have one such tank, Eldar have one such tank, etc.
In WW2, there was a great symbiosis between armour and infantry. Infantry needed the tanks to clear enemy infantry and support weapons at medium-long range. Tanks needed infantry to clear enemy AT and screen at short ranged infantry AT.
That doesn't exist in 40k because an infantry squad is often carrying the same firepower as the tank.
If you want realistic Second World War tank engagements, 40k just isn't that game.
More realistic than what 9th does, is absolutely something that could be achieved.
Increasing tank toughness and wounds, whilst increasing the strength and damage of dedicated AT guns could be an answer.
Although I feel we're getting somewhat off topic here. There's already a discussion on this very issue in the Proposed Rules section.
The term I use is "fidelity" instead of realistic.
We all know that 40K is a "non-realistic" setting, but within the context of that setting, which includes tanks and armored vehicles, and units described down into individual model-level wargear options, what level of rules provides a "high fidelity" experience that translates the setting effectively to the play space.
If one is arguing that the game isn't designed to handle "tank facings" and the level of detailed that applies, then what about the level of detail and customization given to hero wargear options? Maybe that ought to be streamlined. Or you know, psychic attacks are too detailed and that shouldn't be it's own thing, and so on.
I realize I'm making strawman's here, but it seems like the issue isn't about not wanting more detailed rules globally, because if that was the case then less detail would be asked for in other places.
FWIW, I think recognizing that vehicles are fundamentally different from other types of units and their use and operations should be different, supports a higher fidelity experience consistent with what is depicted in the game's lore and setting.
I liked "evocative" that someone mentioned earlier.
The rules should evoke the feeling that you expect from the setting. I don't think 9th edition rules do that very well at all.
5th edition was closer, but I think that was more due to them being fundamentally different with mechanics like ramming. I would like to see those return, just not the one-shot-one-kill armour piercing mechanics.
Tanks at the moment just feel like overgrown infantry.
Considering Marines are basically one man armies in the lore while Tyranids are an endless swarm, I'm not sure "cinematic" or "fidelity" is entirely achievable or even desired.
What was wrong with ramming and tank shocks?
Particularly in 7th it actually felt rather pointless to me, as whatever you tank shocked just took a leadership test (read: autopass) and then moved out the way.
I don't know anything much about 8th / 9th but I think if you wanted to reintroduce facings in an elegant and balanced way you could house rule it in this way:
Every model with the Vehicle keyword (is that a thing?) can take the Optimised Armour upgrade for free.
A model with Optimised Armour has -1 toughness to all hits that can draw a LOS to its rear facing but +1 toughness to all hits that can not do so.
kirotheavenger wrote: ...In WW2, there was a great symbiosis between armour and infantry. Infantry needed the tanks to clear enemy infantry and support weapons at medium-long range. Tanks needed infantry to clear enemy AT and screen at short ranged infantry AT.
That doesn't exist in 40k because an infantry squad is often carrying the same firepower as the tank...
Try: That symbiosis doesn't exist because anti-tank grenades are gone, because tanks are overloaded with anti-personnel weapons that are also very efficient AT because of stupid decisions about translating blasts into 8th, because the short-range AT weapons (a meltagun or fusion gun is absolutely the 40k equivalent of a panzerfaust/bazooka, or a LAW or RPG if you want to compare 40k to cold-war/modern warfare) are no better at killing tanks than longer-ranged general-purpose weapons available to the same units (plasma), and because there is no way to screen against something like a jetbike going 2d6+22" ignoring all terrain from the other side of an impenetrable wall except by physically filling the board with bodies. Play pre-D-spam oldhammer or 30k and you'll find the tank/infantry symbiosis is alive and well.
Tyran wrote: Considering Marines are basically one man armies in the lore while Tyranids are an endless swarm, I'm not sure "cinematic" or "fidelity" is entirely achievable or even desired.
Also ramming was a very broken mechanic.
Depends on how you execute it. I think the notion of playing a squad of Chapter Masters as movies marines is a great idea. Likewise Without Number really gave you that endless swarm feeling without conferring an overwhelming advantage.
kirotheavenger wrote: What was wrong with ramming and tank shocks?
Particularly in 7th it actually felt rather pointless to me, as whatever you tank shocked just took a leadership test (read: autopass) and then moved out the way.
kirotheavenger wrote: What was wrong with ramming and tank shocks?
Particularly in 7th it actually felt rather pointless to me, as whatever you tank shocked just took a leadership test (read: autopass) and then moved out the way.
It was too easy to bully units out of objectives.
Which was a trivial fix without writing any additional rules if you just put some tank traps down when setting up the table.
kirotheavenger wrote: ...In WW2, there was a great symbiosis between armour and infantry. Infantry needed the tanks to clear enemy infantry and support weapons at medium-long range. Tanks needed infantry to clear enemy AT and screen at short ranged infantry AT.
That doesn't exist in 40k because an infantry squad is often carrying the same firepower as the tank...
Try: That symbiosis doesn't exist because anti-tank grenades are gone, because tanks are overloaded with anti-personnel weapons that are also very efficient AT because of stupid decisions about translating blasts into 8th, because the short-range AT weapons (a meltagun or fusion gun is absolutely the 40k equivalent of a panzerfaust/bazooka, or a LAW or RPG if you want to compare 40k to cold-war/modern warfare) are no better at killing tanks than longer-ranged general-purpose weapons available to the same units (plasma), and because there is no way to screen against something like a jetbike going 2d6+22" ignoring all terrain from the other side of an impenetrable wall except by physically filling the board with bodies. Play pre-D-spam oldhammer or 30k and you'll find the tank/infantry symbiosis is alive and well.
A lot of those problems are simply problems with 8th/9th ed implementations of things, I was trying to speak fr a generic sense of what 40k could be.
You're absolutely right that melta is a great analogy to the panzerfausts/RPG type weapons.
Those being equivalent or inferior to plasma is a problem with 9th.
Likewise anti-infantry specialised tanks shouldn't be an issue, because they should be vulnerable to other tanks. That's a problem with 9th.
Screening against a jetbike is exactly the sort of fundamental issue with 40k that I was getting at. It's just not possible, so you lose that symbiosis. If jetbikes have anti-tank weapons capable of reliably one shotting a tank, even at close range, tanks have no real means to defend against that.
Dedicated anti-tank units in many armies meant mounting lots of S9, instead of a single very powerful gun, as would be the case in WW2.
The latter case lends itself to damage models empthasing single devastating hits, the former does not.
Which was a trivial fix without writing any additional rules if you just put some tank traps down when setting up the table.
Assuming you were playing on a board you set up, assuming you reached a consensus with your opponent on how tank traps are supposed to function, assuming you were able to predict objective positions when setting up the terrain.
Also, never saw anyone do a successful Death & Glory. Stopping a tank with one attack or instant death means not even Monsters or characters wanted to risk it with such unfavorable odds.
Tyran wrote: ...Assuming you were playing on a board you set up...
...Absolutely. This is a basic requirement of playing 40kin every edition. If your opponent or a third party set up the table and you think your opponent has an unfair advantage and then you don't do anything about it, then yes. Your opponent will have an unfair advantage.
...assuming you reached a consensus with your opponent on how tank traps are supposed to function...
Tank traps were defined in the terrain rules in 6th/7th and given as an example of how terrain should work in 4th/5th. If your opponent argues about whether tank traps should be passable to tracked tanks something's gone horribly wrong.
...assuming you were able to predict objective positions when setting up the terrain...
In editions where players placed the objectives you got to place half of them. If you set up terrain such that there are no places where you can put an objective that a tank can't bully infantry off of it something's wrong with your terrain setup.
kirotheavenger wrote: ...Screening against a jetbike is exactly the sort of fundamental issue with 40k that I was getting at. It's just not possible, so you lose that symbiosis. If jetbikes have anti-tank weapons capable of reliably one shotting a tank, even at close range, tanks have no real means to defend against that...
I think it's more of a problem with the inflated threat ranges in 8th/9th. The effort to simplify the "fly" rules by letting your jetbikes teleport from point to point instead of making them move around solid boxes, the longer movements, and the smaller tables in 9th make it much harder to hide from fast units than it used to be. Vehicles also used to get some advantage from cover, which they don't anymore.
...Dedicated anti-tank units in many armies meant mounting lots of S9, instead of a single very powerful gun, as would be the case in WW2.
The latter case lends itself to damage models empthasing single devastating hits, the former does not...
While I agree that that's not a very WWII thing spamming AT is very much a thing in a Cold War context. Look at Team Yankee (every rifle squad has a RPG/LAW attack) or the Wargame video game series (every infantry unit has a one-shot AT weapon per dude).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tyran wrote: Yeah meanwhile the realities of competitive play means that is not always possible.
And while blindly following competitive play at the cost of casual play is foolish, refusing to consider competitive play is even more so.
In a competitive environment the table that let vehicles move around so freely that tank shock was that much of a problem is still badly-built, it's just the TO's fault in that case.
...Dedicated anti-tank units in many armies meant mounting lots of S9, instead of a single very powerful gun, as would be the case in WW2.
The latter case lends itself to damage models empthasing single devastating hits, the former does not...
While I agree that that's not a very WWII thing spamming AT is very much a thing in a Cold War context. Look at Team Yankee (every rifle squad has a RPG/LAW attack) or the Wargame video game series (every infantry unit has a one-shot AT weapon per dude).
That's close range infantry AT though, and is a different beast.
Long range AT is handled by single powerful ~100-120mm guns backed up by ATGMs.
Whereas in 40k that long range AT isn't single powerful guns, it's mounting lots of smaller guns, such as lascannons.
...Dedicated anti-tank units in many armies meant mounting lots of S9, instead of a single very powerful gun, as would be the case in WW2.
The latter case lends itself to damage models empthasing single devastating hits, the former does not...
While I agree that that's not a very WWII thing spamming AT is very much a thing in a Cold War context. Look at Team Yankee (every rifle squad has a RPG/LAW attack) or the Wargame video game series (every infantry unit has a one-shot AT weapon per dude).
That's close range infantry AT though, and is a different beast.
Long range AT is handled by single powerful ~100-120mm guns backed up by ATGMs.
Whereas in 40k that long range AT isn't single powerful guns, it's mounting lots of smaller guns, such as lascannons.
If you compare the stats from 3e-7e to the stats from Bolt Action (written by some of the same people) a lascannon is roughly equivalent to a late-war high-velocity 75mm gun usually fielded as the main gun on a tank (glances the best AV in the game on 5+, just short of the S10/pen +7 you'd see on the 88 or the QF 17-pdr). I don't think the designers intended it to be interpreted as a smaller gun, regardless of how spammable it's become since the Warlord folks left.
The spammableness is exactly the point though.
A tank will have one high velocity ~75mm gun, in 40k it has four lascannons.
It's too large for an infantry squad to carry, in 40k they'll have 1-4 such guns.
I don't consider the las cannon a "smaller gun" it's more powerful than an autocannon that is quite effective at dealing with lighter armor (12 or less)
Because a space marine can carry it along with a limited power pack doesn't make it small when one considers what a space marine represents in the lore. he is an 8ft tall (in power armor) walking tank. the physical size of the gun is not what makes it powerful, it's the strength VS AV.
The spammableness is exactly the point though.
A tank will have one high velocity ~75mm gun, in 40k it has four lascannons.
It's too large for an infantry squad to carry, in 40k they'll have 1-4 such guns.
Here is the rub though- in all the previous editions to be effective with 4 las cannons it has to sit still for 3 shots (remember one is twin linked) and the sponsons are optional. it is often not mounted on chapters that prefer speed over static defense. remembering that the predator is supposed to be a fast light support platform for fast moving marines. not a leman russ that plods along blazing away with a battle cannon, 3 heavy bolters and a heavy stubber(back when defensive weapons were S5 or less) laying waste to infantry by the score.
Lore and tabletop are two different beasts though.
A Space Marine in lore is a one-man army.
On the tabletop they're the standard foot soldier of the majority of armies.
Imperial Guard are the same anyway. A lascannon in size and use is more similar to a PTRD anti-tank rifle of WW2 than a 75mm PaK.40, carried in two man teams within squads. That's what I'm referring to when I'm saying it's a light-ish gun.
Hence, vehicles can't really be vulnerable in the same way as you need to somehow marry the theoretical capabilities of one gun, with the massed deployment of it.
sorry i don't see the comparison-the difference on table top between a marine carry a heavy weapon and a team of guardsmen is still actually pretty glaring. this is the heavy bolter for comparison
Both have 1 heavy weapon integral to the basic infantry squad.
And dedicated teams of 3-4 heavy weapons.
Vehicles mounting 3-4 heavy weapons.
The fact that the marine is holding it in his hands and the Guardsman aren't is, from a tabletop perspective, irrelevant.
As I said, the Guardsman are using that heavy bolter the same way as they would a lascannon.
Which is the same way an anti-tank rifle or heavy machine gun would be used in WW2.
Hence, a lascannon can't be considered comparable to a high velocity anti-tank gun.
Which then follows that an anti-tank system that works for a game focused around anti-tank guns is not suitable for 40k, a game focused around lascannon 'anti-tank rifles'.
kirotheavenger wrote: The spammableness is exactly the point though.
A tank will have one high velocity ~75mm gun, in 40k it has four lascannons.
It's too large for an infantry squad to carry, in 40k they'll have 1-4 such guns.
History, WWII - present, disagrees with you.
And 40k is only inspired by history & reality, not a simulation of it.
kirotheavenger wrote: The spammableness is exactly the point though.
A tank will have one high velocity ~75mm gun, in 40k it has four lascannons.
It's too large for an infantry squad to carry, in 40k they'll have 1-4 such guns.
History, WWII - present, disagrees with you.
And 40k is only inspired by history & reality, not a simulation of it.
I don't think history does disagree with me.
In 40k a lascannon is operated by 1-2 infantry models, and moved at the same pace as the model would otherwise.
If we continue comparing to WW2/bolt action with the high velocity AT gun analogy, you're looking at a crew more like 4-8 people, and to do any sort of practical movement you need to haul it around with horses or vehicles. Very different.
In 40k a lascannon is handled like an anti-tank rifle, heavy machine gun, or similar small crew-served weapon. WW2 infantry AT had pitifully short range so is a different beast.
In more modern times you have ATGMs with comparable capability to the AT guns get more mobile, but are still issued on approximately the same basis. Whereas light infantry carried RPGs/similar get longer range they're still limited in ways lascannons aren't, such as amount of ammo.
Tanks still mount a single, powerful, gun. Unlike Predators or Leman Russes.
As you so accurately put - 40k is only inspired by reality.
So a system appropriate for a game simulating reality (such as Bolt Action) is not appropriate for 40k, because it's just not the same.
Everyone I guess has just decided to ignore my point that no, tanks in 40k do not mount man portable weapons except in secondary roles EXCEPT IMPERIUM TANKS which in the canon are explicitly backwards and lower tech.
And even most of *them* have a non-man-portable heavy weapon in the turret. The Predator is not the standard Imperial tank.
This is literally one of the stranger arguments that I've encountered recently on these forums.
What is even being argued about? To what extent 40K weapons have analogies to WW2 weapons and therefore whether 40K rules should handle vehicles in a more "realistic" (or whatever) way? Bizarre.
Tanks still mount a single, powerful, gun. Unlike Predators or Leman Russes.
I think all or most of the LRBT variants actually do have a single powerful gun: Vanquisher, Demolisher, Punisher, Battlecannon one, the plasma one etc. You can festoon them with extra secondary weapons but I think they are all optional upgrades. None of those main weapons are man portable even for space marines.
I think the Predator would be classed as a Cruiser, Cavalry or Light Tank. It has the same hull as a Rhino which is just an APC.
What is even being argued about? To what extent 40K weapons have analogies to WW2 weapons and therefore whether 40K rules should handle vehicles in a more "realistic" (or whatever) way? Bizarre.
That's pretty much it.
I think how vehicle rules should be implemented is a good discussion to have.
5th seems to be very popular across Dakka and it gives a strongly contrasting vehicle behaviour to today. And the popularity of 5th here suggests it's a widely held opinion.
Space Marines are easily the single most popular faction around. So any discussion of whether or not a vehicle mechanic is going to work is going to inherently centre around them.
It's not like a Predator is some niche vehicle that is unlikely to see the tabletop (although GW appears to be trying to change that).
Space Marines may represent the worst case scenario in terms of matching real life, I think you'll be hard pressed to argue that it's also not the most common scenario.
Tanks still mount a single, powerful, gun. Unlike Predators or Leman Russes.
I think all or most of the LRBT variants actually do have a single powerful gun: Vanquisher, Demolisher, Punisher, Battlecannon one, the plasma one etc. You can festoon them with extra secondary weapons but I think they are all optional upgrades. None of those main weapons are man portable even for space marines.
I think the Predator would be classed as a Cruiser, Cavalry or Light Tank. It has the same hull as a Rhino which is just an APC.
There's an argument for the Exterminator Autocannon just being a pair of Autocannon, but as far as I can see the other turret weapons in the IG 'dex aren't man-portable weapons (or pairs thereof).
In terms of secondary weapons on the Russ, you do have to have a hull weapon (HB/HF/LC), but the sponsons are optional.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Everyone I guess has just decided to ignore my point that no, tanks in 40k do not mount man portable weapons except in secondary roles EXCEPT IMPERIUM TANKS which in the canon are explicitly backwards and lower tech.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Everyone I guess has just decided to ignore my point that no, tanks in 40k do not mount man portable weapons except in secondary roles EXCEPT IMPERIUM TANKS which in the canon are explicitly backwards and lower tech.
Except for those Eldar types...
Depends on your standards for "man-portable". Eldar man-portable heavy weapons involve a lot of anti-grav tech to make them light enough to carry. And when we're talking about tanks rather than APCs the pulse laser, nightspinner, prism cannon, d-flail, Firestorm array, sonic lance, and pulsar really aren't man-portable.
They are marines in space though, the clue is in the name. That was the original concept before GW decided to turn them into Space Knights, Space Vikings, Space Templars and Space Vampires. In the real world marines don't usually roll around in tanks, that is the armour corps job. If they have that kind of gear it will be of the light sort, cruiser tanks rather than MBTs. Maybe one day they will get a proper MBT but then what is the IG for then?
SolarCross wrote: Maybe one day they will get a proper MBT but then what is the IG for then?
Primaris do, the Gladiator.
If you include Forgeworld then actually the old marines had a MBT in the Sicarian. I just looked up the Gladiator and it looks like a flying predator but its role is tank hunting seemingly, so that would make it a Tank Destroyer. Of course Primaris are really big so presumably even a light tank would count as a heavy tank for other smaller bods.
As I said, the Guardsman are using that heavy bolter the same way as they would a lascannon.
Which is the same way an anti-tank rifle or heavy machine gun would be used in WW2.
i should have posted this for comparison
PAK 38 anti-tank gun-usually a 3 man team-gunner/loader/spotter(gun crew commander)
Limited man protable over shorter distances (they just pick it up by the rear support struts and roll it. very similair the the heavy weapons teams we see on the table for guard for all heavy weapon options.
If they have that kind of gear it will be of the light sort, cruiser tanks rather than MBTs
Index astartes IV has an entire section on the predator and it is listed as a squad support light tank.
So think of it in WWII terms as an M5 stewart, M22 locust, m24 chaffe etc... usually fast, lightly armored and sporting a 37mm, 47MM and sometimes a low velocity 75mm gun with seconday machineguns.
The PaK.38 had a crew of 5, not 3.
Plus Imperial Guard (two man) heavy weapon teams can run around at full.speed with their gun. That's not limited mobility.
There is no tank comparable to the Predator in real life.
The guys that wrote the books had absolutely no idea what they were talking about, as they also stated the Predator's armour was equivalent to 200mm of steel, and a Leman Russes merely inches.
We ready established earlier that a lascannon was comparable in stopping power to a high velocity 75mm (PaK.40 crew is 6 btw), but it's completely different in terms of deployment.
In terms of deployment it's more similar to an anti-tank rifle or a machine gun.
Nor can you reduce the lethality of the lascannon because it's best weapon relied upon by many armies.
It's fool hardy to try and make equivalents to real life because there simply aren't any.
There is no tank comparable to the Predator in real life.
*cough*
M113A1 Medium Reconnaissance Vehicle (MRV) - Full designation Carrier, Fire Support, Full Track M113A1 (FS) Scorpion Turret[4] was an Australian variant similar to the M113 FSV, but using the turret from the FV101 Scorpion light tank,
It looks to me like the modern world is going the other way; lighter transports/APCs converted to light tanks have been a thing in the past, but the Israelis and the Russians have both started building APCs based on the tanks these days. So in that sense the Dracosan (Malcador-chassis transport) and the Crassus (Macharius-chassis transport) map to the real world better than converting a Rhino into a tank.
They are marines in space though, the clue is in the name. That was the original concept before GW decided to turn them into Space Knights, Space Vikings, Space Templars and Space Vampires. In the real world marines don't usually roll around in tanks, that is the armour corps job. If they have that kind of gear it will be of the light sort, cruiser tanks rather than MBTs. Maybe one day they will get a proper MBT but then what is the IG for then?
Well I guess that depends upon who's real world Marines we're discussing.
While your pre & post WWII Royal Marines might not use much armor, the USMC has been using armor (generally whatever the most current MBT is) since 1923.
WWII, Korea, Nam, Cold War, Middle East, etc, USMC armor has been there & been there in force. Even if they aren't the units that spring to mind first.
The USMC is currently in the process of phasing out it's 4(?) tank battalions (that's 56-84 tanks + support per battalionbtw) though. I think they're about 1/2way through the process.
There is no tank comparable to the Predator in real life.
*cough*
M113A1 Medium Reconnaissance Vehicle (MRV) - Full designation Carrier, Fire Support, Full Track M113A1 (FS) Scorpion Turret[4] was an Australian variant similar to the M113 FSV, but using the turret from the FV101 Scorpion light tank,
Crew weapons would often be served, in practice, by crews larger than the official.
Although even if they go tjr other way, Germany's chronic man power shortages is not evidence of similarity to a lascannon, because a lascannon is clearly far more widely deployed and more mobile than the 50mm (we also established it's more powerful than the 50mm).
Where's the sponson mounted weapons on that vehicle? Where's the variant with two powerful anti-tank guns? Why is it much less armoured than a Predator? (A Predator is 13 out 14 possible armour armour points).
A visual similarity is not really relevant.
Even a Leman Russ, a more clear call back to real life armour, mounts 3 large crew served weapons as *secondary* armament, no WW2 tank has ever mounted anything more than small machine guns as secondary armament, and normally only ~2. Post war experiments with heavier co-axs have all failed and we're back to 1 machine gun as secondary. Weaker in both impact and number than a Russ.
It's a baffling argument that 40k closely follow real life.
Where's the sponson mounted weapons on that vehicle? Where's the variant with two powerful anti-tank guns? Why is it much less armoured than a Predator? (A Predator is 13 out 14 possible armour armour points).
A visual similarity is not really relevant.
when they develop real laser weapons for tanks in real life comparable to a las cannon i'll let you know...otherwise this is the AC version
i mean the blitzer railgun is a thing but the power requiments would exceed a light tanks capabilities.
Even a Leman Russ, a more clear call back to real life armour, mounts 3 large crew served weapons as *secondary* armament, no WW2 tank has ever mounted anything more than small machine guns as secondary armament, and normally only ~2. Post war experiments with heavier co-axs have all failed and we're back to 1 machine gun as secondary. Weaker in both impact and number than a Russ.
You seem obsessed with the optional sponsons. that hasn't been a thing on modern tanks since WWII, it was purely a WWI land battleship concept that was mostly phased out between the world wars.
GW based their designs on a mix of vehicles including the predator and leman russ the latter with a hull based on this vehicle.
Hmm this seems familiar to the real world vehicle.
or how about
As for tanks with secondaries or multiple armarments......
her e is one M1A2 abrams variant with the standard loader hatch 7.62 machinegun turret, tank commander .50 call machinegun hatch turret, co-axle 7.62 machinegun and optional co-axle .50 cal machinegun.
one of my personal favorites-the terminator II russian fire support tank.
I rather fear you've missed the point something fierce.
when they develop real laser weapons for tanks in real life comparable to a las cannon i'll let you know...
Exactly! A comparison is silly and therefore rules cannot necesarily be comparable.
You seem obsessed with the optional sponsons. that hasn't been a thing on modern tanks since WWII, it was purely a WWI land battleship concept that was mostly phased out between the world wars.
You can't just ignore the optional sponsons because they're inconvenient for you, most people have them modelled.
As for sponsons not being a thing anymore - again, that's exactly the point I'm making!
GW based their designs on a mix of vehicles including the predator and leman russ the latter with a hull based on this vehicle.
Visually, yes. But as I said, visuals have nothing to do with the crunch of anti-armour dice rolling that we're discussing.
And there is a HUGE difference between the distribution and capabilities of anti-tank weapons in 40k to real life.
her e is one M1A2 abrams variant with the standard loader hatch 7.62 machinegun turret, tank commander .50 call machinegun hatch turret, co-axle 7.62 machinegun and optional co-axle .50 cal machinegun.
.50s are more similar to the heavy stubber or stormbolter you will often find on Imperial Tanks.
You were the one that initially stated a lascannon is similar in capability to a 75mm anti-tank gun of WW2, and I agreed. A .50, let alone .30 is not even remotely comparable to that.
I'm not here to discuss the visual similarities to modern tanks, because you're clearly right that 40k draws on real life for inspiration.
I'm discussing capabilities. And the capabilities aren't comparable.
So a ruleset that works for one capability will not necesarily work for the other.
All the tanks of WW1 were basically prototypes for the concept of bringing back armour to the field of battlefield in the face of ever deadlier guns by using a combustion engine instead of a horse or man to carry ever thicker armour beyond the limits of what flesh can push around. WW1 tanks are weird looking because they are all radical experiments in a new field of arms development. Check out the Tzar tank for the weirdest looking WW1 era tank experiment.
By WW2 the concept of motorised heavy cavalry was thoroughly proven to have value on the field. Innovation continued of course but much of it was about optimising rather than experimenting.
It is funny to think of it because we tend to see old things as "traditional" but it takes time to develop traditions so the first originators of a tradition are being anything but traditional, they are being pretty radical actually. So in terms of tanks WW1 was untraditional / radical but by WW2 tanks had enough development that traditions are getting bedded in to the concept.
40k is a year in which tanks in field use have designs dating back tens of thousands of years, lol. Everything is way past traditional.
8th was a massive and important change to the rules. 9th has learned and improved on that.
The game is now designed to be played with other people. I can't write that without it sounding patronising and I don't mean it to be. Its designed to be played with 'lots' of other people, not just a small gaming group. The ruleset is designed to be easy to play at tournament level. This I believe is the driving theme of the last 2 editions. Talk to any organiser and they will let tell you it is so easy to referee now.
This has led to rules simplification and a focus on 'combos' where card based enhancements influence core traits. The balancing of this occasionally struggles but GW have been (surprisingly for long time follows of the company) nimble at dealing with this. Speak to any faction player and they will grumble about a nerf of some sort..... this is inherently an indication of good balance attempts!
Specific focus has also been given to building towards the standard of 2k pts. I haven't played crusade but any gripes I've heard have been alongside a 'but its great fun'.
The game is very easy to get into, hard to master - the models remain superb, the IP is deep.
The numbers playing, the general demenor of the community, the embracing of the interweb and a solid ruleset mean the game is as well placed as I have seen it (started playing in 88').
When it comes to older editions vs. 9th what I would say is this. I played 40k from 4th ed onward. I liked older editions, particularly 5th edition. However I have no interest in playing them now. 40k has always had an over the top, dumb, and unrealistic setting....and I love it. The modern 9th edition rules fit that setting better than the older ones IMO.
That said I do miss some things about older editions but not game mechanics like armor facings, AV, blast templates, etc. I miss things like the force organization chart, lords of war type units not being allowed outside of apoc, imperial knights not being a payable faction, etc. While I miss those things not having them in 9th is not a deal breaker.
I'd agree that 8/9th moved to be a lot simpler. But I dislike the direction they've gone with things like stratagems.
Plus, the rules seem to be more focused on selling new models than they do being fun and balanced to play.
Depends on which background, I think 8th edition completely overhauled the lore.
The Imperium is no longer backwards and fighting a losing battle.
Now they're advancing at record pace and are summoning vast crusades to fight back.
kirotheavenger wrote: Depends on which background, I think 8th edition completely overhauled the lore.
The Imperium is no longer backwards and fighting a losing battle.
Now they're advancing at record pace and are summoning vast crusades to fight back.
Which completely misses the point as to why 40k was great.
kirotheavenger wrote: Depends on which background, I think 8th edition completely overhauled the lore.
The Imperium is no longer backwards and fighting a losing battle.
Now they're advancing at record pace and are summoning vast crusades to fight back.
Which completely misses the point as to why 40k was great.
Luckily it’s a forlorn hope, the universe is still under attack from all sides, situation bleaker than ever blah blah basically exactly the same as it ever was, save for people still being salty about some slightly taller Marines over three years later.
kirotheavenger wrote: Depends on which background, I think 8th edition completely overhauled the lore.
The Imperium is no longer backwards and fighting a losing battle.
Now they're advancing at record pace and are summoning vast crusades to fight back.
Which completely misses the point as to why 40k was great.
Luckily it’s a forlorn hope, the universe is still under attack from all sides, situation bleaker than ever blah blah basically exactly the same as it ever was, save for people still being salty about some slightly taller Marines over three years later.
The Great Rift was the best thing to happen to the Imperium in a long time. Guilliman got brought back as a direct result of it, Cawl suddenly pulled the covers off untold numbers of (better than ever) Marine reinforcements, the Imperium's actively going back on the offensive, crossing the Great Rift apparently only costs you a ship or two of redshirts so long as you've got plot armour, Chaos can't/won't keep any kind of momentum up.
kirotheavenger wrote: Depends on which background, I think 8th edition completely overhauled the lore.
The Imperium is no longer backwards and fighting a losing battle.
Now they're advancing at record pace and are summoning vast crusades to fight back.
Which completely misses the point as to why 40k was great.
Totally agree, and I really dislike the aesthetic of the new Space Marine stuff.
My personal approach is to just ignore the new stuff and pretend it doesn't exist. Of course, that only works so well as not using Primaris is tantamount to slitting your own throat when it comes to competitive Space Marines.
kirotheavenger wrote: Depends on which background, I think 8th edition completely overhauled the lore.
The Imperium is no longer backwards and fighting a losing battle.
Now they're advancing at record pace and are summoning vast crusades to fight back.
Which completely misses the point as to why 40k was great.
Luckily it’s a forlorn hope, the universe is still under attack from all sides, situation bleaker than ever blah blah basically exactly the same as it ever was, save for people still being salty about some slightly taller Marines over three years later.
Well, it would probably help if we got some lore that wasn't constantly talking primaris up. Maybe stories where instead of having CSM characters talk about how awesome primaris are we could get some where the old veterans show the thin bloods what a few millennia of experience can do.
Or show us what Chaos and Xenos factions have been up to around and past the Great Rift in the couple of centuries since Cadia fell (that is where the timeline is right now, isn't it?). Maybe see what they've been building out there. The 8th edition CSM codex hinted at some of the more scattered Legions starting to reunite, that could be bad news for the corpse worshippers.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Or show us what Chaos and Xenos factions have been up to around and past the Great Rift in the couple of centuries since Cadia fell (that is where the timeline is right now, isn't it?). Maybe see what they've been building out there. The 8th edition CSM codex hinted at some of the more scattered Legions starting to reunite, that could be bad news for the corpse worshippers.
At least for the orks they have done that. Thrakka has created a sector-spanning and continuously growing empire that is amassing orks, ships and wargear for something and Sage of the Beast was mostly about the Space Wolves spectacularly failing to do anything about it.
kirotheavenger wrote: Depends on which background, I think 8th edition completely overhauled the lore.
The Imperium is no longer backwards and fighting a losing battle.
Now they're advancing at record pace and are summoning vast crusades to fight back.
Which completely misses the point as to why 40k was great.
Luckily it’s a forlorn hope, the universe is still under attack from all sides, situation bleaker than ever blah blah basically exactly the same as it ever was, save for people still being salty about some slightly taller Marines over three years later.
The Great Rift was the best thing to happen to the Imperium in a long time. Guilliman got brought back as a direct result of it, Cawl suddenly pulled the covers off untold numbers of (better than ever) Marine reinforcements, the Imperium's actively going back on the offensive, crossing the Great Rift apparently only costs you a ship or two of redshirts so long as you've got plot armour, Chaos can't/won't keep any kind of momentum up.
The tone's never been more optimistic in 40k.
I mean Cadia got fried; there's a Chaos fleet that almost cut the Imperium in half; it seems Abbadon has been building up Crusades for more than just smashing things up; Necrons are starting to actually organise and unite behind a single leader who in turn only fled back to the Galaxy because of a threat he saw without in the black which we assume is the Tyranids. Tyranids themselves are building a vast planet sized weapon for a purpose no one knows; Genestealer Cults are on the Rise. Upstart Xenos races are not just pushing back, but securing and corrupting humans to their cause on the Fringe
About the only Xenos not causing trouble en-mass is Eldar and there's every chance that that will change if they get a big model and lore update. With the revelation likely being that Eldar will shift from a race dwindling and on the fringe that acts in secret; to one that actually starts to push back boundaries and take new worlds (heck if GW ever releases Exodites they'd be ideal for pushing the story of Eldar starting to reclaim worlds and territories of their own once more)
Sure the Imperium got a Primarch back and some new toys, but by heck its not all that hopeful when almost everything else has turned against them. I mean sure we won't see the Imperium fall, but its not like its enjoying a second Golden Age of prosperity. Heck the returned Primarch has to deal with all kinds of political issues from major segments of the Imperium who don't really want him around!
Gadzilla666 wrote: Or show us what Chaos and Xenos factions have been up to around and past the Great Rift in the couple of centuries since Cadia fell (that is where the timeline is right now, isn't it?). Maybe see what they've been building out there. The 8th edition CSM codex hinted at some of the more scattered Legions starting to reunite, that could be bad news for the corpse worshippers.
At least for the orks they have done that. Thrakka has created a sector-spanning and continuously growing empire that is amassing orks, ships and wargear for something and Sage of the Beast was mostly about the Space Wolves spectacularly failing to do anything about it.
Now that could be interesting. Maybe Ghaz could be planning on taking back Ullano.... I mean Armageddon, back permanently. Hopefully gw will finally let Orks win for once, though it sounds like they did in War of The Beast. Though it was a close call for Ghaz.
There is no tank comparable to the Predator in real life.
*cough*
M113A1 Medium Reconnaissance Vehicle (MRV) - Full designation Carrier, Fire Support, Full Track M113A1 (FS) Scorpion Turret[4] was an Australian variant similar to the M113 FSV, but using the turret from the FV101 Scorpion light tank,
Crew weapons would often be served, in practice, by crews larger than the official.
Although even if they go tjr other way, Germany's chronic man power shortages is not evidence of similarity to a lascannon, because a lascannon is clearly far more widely deployed and more mobile than the 50mm (we also established it's more powerful than the 50mm).
Where's the sponson mounted weapons on that vehicle? Where's the variant with two powerful anti-tank guns? Why is it much less armoured than a Predator? (A Predator is 13 out 14 possible armour armour points).
A visual similarity is not really relevant.
Even a Leman Russ, a more clear call back to real life armour, mounts 3 large crew served weapons as *secondary* armament, no WW2 tank has ever mounted anything more than small machine guns as secondary armament, and normally only ~2. Post war experiments with heavier co-axs have all failed and we're back to 1 machine gun as secondary. Weaker in both impact and number than a Russ.
It's a baffling argument that 40k closely follow real life.
Okay maybe I was a little overzealous in "no tank ever", I forgot about those two fairly niche tanks.
Feel free to declare intellectual victory.
Regardless, so what?
It doesn't change the crux of the matter at all.
Beyond a rare, bad, joke of a tank and a stop gap measure I'm right.
In 40k those tanks are *very much* the norm.
To head off the inevitable "the Imperium isn't the norm" it is on the tabletop, which is what matters to this discussion.
Nurglitch wrote: Yes, pinning, falling back, stunning, and shaking vehicles were some great breaks on the whole 'overwhelming firepower' thing that was going on.
They made sense with the rate of fire of older editions. Now rate of fire is massively superior and with more lethality around the last thing we need is the abiltiy to invalidate enemy units in addition to casualties.
Maybe? I think allowing weapons to do something other than cause casualties would be a good offset to the ridiculous arms race of the last couple of editions.
