Switch Theme:

Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit  [RSS] 

How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/10 21:44:49


Post by: leerm02


Hey folks,
Just a simple discussion topic here today (continued from another topic)

In 9th, do we need some kind of universal buff to tanks/vehicles? If so, what would be a good example of a simple balanced rule that might address this issue?
(Admin note: if you think this topic would be a better fit in the proposed rules or tactics forums you have my blessing to move it or delete it. I honestly couldn't decide where it fit Best)


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/10 21:50:43


Post by: Sledgehammer


Make aircraft great again. Getting hit with flamers and charged by "flying infantry" completely took me out of the game.

There's really just problems with vehicles in general.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/10 22:30:16


Post by: AnomanderRake


Rejigger the S/T table so small arms aren't a meaningful threat to vehicles/monsters, and make "blast" weapons only able to hit them once, and we might start getting somewhere.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/10 22:36:26


Post by: dewd11


I know the game is already swamped with invulns, but any vehicle without one (Lemun Russ, Land Raiders) are always outclassed by those with them (Raiders, Doomsday Arks). Those without one are usually free kills. Either they should all get an invuln of 5++/6++ to reflect their heavy armor, or AP should be scaled back for most things besides dedicated AT guns.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/10 22:42:14


Post by: Argive



Bring back and tweak old wounding chart.
Make T7/8 relevant.
Make vehicles have an AP immunity I.e. if you're a tank you ignore the first two points of AP.
However at the same time I dont see why you shouldn't be able to one shot a vehicle tank with a well placed Heavy weapon..

Fortunately im not a game designer lol.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/10 22:47:25


Post by: FezzikDaBullgryn


 Argive wrote:

Bring back and tweak old wounding chart.
Make T7/8 relevant.
Make vehicles have an AP immunity I.e. if you're a tank you ignore the first two points of AP.



Spoiler:



Make tanks or anything of t7 and has a keyword VEHICLE immune to anti-tank. Give anything las-cannon and melta ish a "Anti-tank" ability keyword. I am sick of seeing my Telemon lose wounds to a S3 shooting weapon.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/10 22:51:48


Post by: Gadzilla666


Making tanks tougher against lasguns and bolters isn't going to help much when what actually kills them is melta and lance weapons.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/10 22:57:13


Post by: Argive


 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Making tanks tougher against lasguns and bolters isn't going to help much when what actually kills them is melta and lance weapons.


If those would wound on 5's and you had a an everage of 5+ save, as well as be quite scarce and priced adequately, I think that could be reasonable.
I mean people cant expect Not to loose tanks at all. But it should probably take all of your dedicated AT to bring down a tank.

At the moment we have armies easily popping two or more T7 3+ vehicles in the first turn. That kinds sucks IMO


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/10 23:05:25


Post by: ERJAK


 Sledgehammer wrote:
Make aircraft great again. Getting hit with flamers and charged by "flying infantry" completely took me out of the game.

There's really just problems with vehicles in general.


Why? Celestine kills an entire fleet of Chaos fighters in her book. One Scrapjet isn't at all out of her capabilities.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
 Argive wrote:

Bring back and tweak old wounding chart.
Make T7/8 relevant.
Make vehicles have an AP immunity I.e. if you're a tank you ignore the first two points of AP.



Spoiler:



Make tanks or anything of t7 and has a keyword VEHICLE immune to anti-tank. Give anything las-cannon and melta ish a "Anti-tank" ability keyword. I am sick of seeing my Telemon lose wounds to a S3 shooting weapon.


None of these do anything to make tanks better or help them survive past the first turn. They're just 'muh immersion' rules and they're useless. They're also poorly thought out but that's beside the point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
Rejigger the S/T table so small arms aren't a meaningful threat to vehicles/monsters, and make "blast" weapons only able to hit them once, and we might start getting somewhere.


No we wouldn't. Tanks are dying in 2 hits to melta and Dark Lances. Small arms have never been a significant threat and multi-d6 blast weapons haven't been relevant tank killers for over a year (unless they were intended to be. Even then melta tends to be better).

Again, these are 'muh immersion' rules, not something that actually makes tanks more playable.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/10 23:22:58


Post by: Sledgehammer


ERJAK wrote:
 Sledgehammer wrote:
Make aircraft great again. Getting hit with flamers and charged by "flying infantry" completely took me out of the game.

There's really just problems with vehicles in general.


Why? Celestine kills an entire fleet of Chaos fighters in her book. One Scrapjet isn't at all out of her capabilities.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
 Argive wrote:

Bring back and tweak old wounding chart.
Make T7/8 relevant.
Make vehicles have an AP immunity I.e. if you're a tank you ignore the first two points of AP.



Spoiler:



Make tanks or anything of t7 and has a keyword VEHICLE immune to anti-tank. Give anything las-cannon and melta ish a "Anti-tank" ability keyword. I am sick of seeing my Telemon lose wounds to a S3 shooting weapon.


None of these do anything to make tanks better or help them survive past the first turn. They're just 'muh immersion' rules and they're useless. They're also poorly thought out but that's beside the point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
Rejigger the S/T table so small arms aren't a meaningful threat to vehicles/monsters, and make "blast" weapons only able to hit them once, and we might start getting somewhere.


No we wouldn't. Tanks are dying in 2 hits to melta and Dark Lances. Small arms have never been a significant threat and multi-d6 blast weapons haven't been relevant tank killers for over a year (unless they were intended to be. Even then melta tends to be better).

Again, these are 'muh immersion' rules, not something that actually makes tanks more playable.
And you think making aircraft suceptible to being destroyed by any boy who happens to be wearing a jetpack is a positive play experience? Stormboys should not be a viable anti air option, just as a lasgun shouldn't be able to be an anti tank Weapon. Ohh but Mkoll turned his lagun into a krak grenade!!!! Yeah no thanks.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/10 23:26:17


Post by: Arachnofiend


I dunno, a crowd of orks using jump packs to fly up to a plane and beat the crap out of the pilot sounds very 40k to me.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/10 23:26:33


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Today I learned "immersion" isn't important in game design.

As a game designer, this is news to me. I will have great news for the office when I get back.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/10 23:36:46


Post by: Gadzilla666


 Argive wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Making tanks tougher against lasguns and bolters isn't going to help much when what actually kills them is melta and lance weapons.


If those would wound on 5's and you had a an everage of 5+ save, as well as be quite scarce and priced adequately, I think that could be reasonable.
I mean people cant expect Not to loose tanks at all. But it should probably take all of your dedicated AT to bring down a tank.

At the moment we have armies easily popping two or more T7 3+ vehicles in the first turn. That kinds sucks IMO

I agree that super effective AT weapons like multi-meltas should be more expensive and therefore harder to spam, and like your idea for allowing tanks to ignore low AP, but making things like S8 and higher weapons wound them on 5s would be a bit much. AT weapons should be able to threaten tanks. I'd start by giving anything that qualifies as a MBT a 2+ save. That way your always getting a save against melta and lance weapons but not invalidating their AP like an invul would. Wouldn't mind bringing back Armoured Ceramite as a purchasable option either, to invalidate the bonus for half range melta.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 00:08:24


Post by: Galas


 Arachnofiend wrote:
I dunno, a crowd of orks using jump packs to fly up to a plane and beat the crap out of the pilot sounds very 40k to me.


It is literally a scene of Space Marine the videogame and it was awesome.


Spoiler:



How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 00:29:13


Post by: Sledgehammer


 Galas wrote:
 Arachnofiend wrote:
I dunno, a crowd of orks using jump packs to fly up to a plane and beat the crap out of the pilot sounds very 40k to me.


It is literally a scene of Space Marine the videogame and it was awesome.


Spoiler:

Yes, that's why I used it as an example. Designing your game systems around events and circumstances that are cool because they deviate from the norm is bad. You functionally render vehicles and aircraft obsolete and redundant. Why would I ever take a flyer if boys can just assault a vehicle going at least 700mph? Why would I want to take a tank if anyone can harm it? It's antithetical to the very idea of a tank in the first place.

Vehicles don't feel like vehicles.

7th edition tanks and aircraft were so much more immersive to use.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 00:30:48


Post by: AnomanderRake


ERJAK wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
Rejigger the S/T table so small arms aren't a meaningful threat to vehicles/monsters, and make "blast" weapons only able to hit them once, and we might start getting somewhere.


No we wouldn't. Tanks are dying in 2 hits to melta and Dark Lances. Small arms have never been a significant threat and multi-d6 blast weapons haven't been relevant tank killers for over a year (unless they were intended to be. Even then melta tends to be better).

Again, these are 'muh immersion' rules, not something that actually makes tanks more playable.


I care a lot more about my immersion than what's happening on tournament tables, yeah.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 00:56:02


Post by: Tyran


 Sledgehammer wrote:
Yes, that's why I used it as an example. Designing your game systems around events and circumstances that are cool because they deviate from the norm is bad.


Tyranid flying creatures routinely assault aircraft, hell the Hive Crone is built around assaulting aircraft and gargoyle swarms are repeatedly noted to be a threat to aircraft.
So assaulting a vehicle going at 1200 km/h is actually part of the norm for 40k.

As for my suggestion, give most vehicles/monsters 1 more toughness. A jump from T7 to 8 and T8 to 9 would have a considerable effect against the current AT weapons like multi-meltas and dark lances, which are S8.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 01:02:55


Post by: Galas


I believe most vehicles just need 50% more wounds. Nothing more. That for and starters. Most infantry is gaining defensive stats, tougthness, saves, wounds. But vehicles have remained the same.

SAD


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 01:05:47


Post by: Sledgehammer


 Tyran wrote:
 Sledgehammer wrote:
Yes, that's why I used it as an example. Designing your game systems around events and circumstances that are cool because they deviate from the norm is bad.


Tyranid flying creatures routinely assault aircraft, hell the Hive Crone is built around assaulting aircraft and gargoyle swarms are repeatedly noted to be a threat to aircraft.
So assaulting a vehicle going at 1200 km/h is actually part of the norm for 40k.

As for my suggestion.
Give most vehicles/monsters 1 more toughness. A jump from T7 to 8 and T8 to 9 would have a considerable effect against the current AT weapons like multi-meltas and dark lances, which are S8.
Those Tyranid bio forms are genetically engineered to function like that, and are essentially just biological flyers. Those are fine.

Having a zephyrim squad, storm boys, and assault marines, attacking an aircraft at 700+ mph is ludicrous and unfun. It's why I quit 8th.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 01:11:05


Post by: Tyran


 Galas wrote:
I believe most vehicles just need 50% more wounds. Nothing more. That for and starters. Most infantry is gaining defensive stats, tougthness, saves, wounds. But vehicles have remained the same.

SAD

I would prefer more toughness rather than more wounds, as the toughness value is painfully underused.

It would also help S9 and higher weapons to have their niche rather than just being outperformed by S8.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 01:14:30


Post by: Jarms48


 Tyran wrote:

As for my suggestion, give most vehicles/monsters 1 more toughness. A jump from T7 to 8 and T8 to 9 would have a considerable effect against the current AT weapons like multi-meltas and dark lances, which are S8.


Realistically, we could go as far as T10. Before 8th edition Railguns would glance vehicles like Land Raiders and Leman Russ tanks on a 4+, and penetrate on a 5+.

With Strength no longer having a cap of 10 it makes things like 2x Strength melee attacks more interesting, and ranged weapons with S12 or more actually viable choices.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 01:18:42


Post by: Tyran


Jarms48 wrote:

Realistically, we could go as far as T10. Before 8th edition Railguns would glance vehicles like Land Raiders and Leman Russ tanks on a 4+, and penetrate on a 5+.

With Strength no longer having a cap of 10 it makes things like 2x Strength melee attacks more interesting, and ranged weapons with S12 or more actually viable choices.


Agree, although with the condition that T8 would be as rare as all around AV14 was, ie Land Raiders and Monoliths. I would prefer Leman Russes to be T9, because they aren't as tough as the previous mentioned vehicles.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 01:21:54


Post by: H.B.M.C.


Right now the Wraithlord and the Reaver Titan are both T8. Tell me that makes sense.

"bUt It HaS sEvEnTy WoUnDs!!!1"

Yes. As it should do. But why is it T8 like a Russ or a Wraithlord?

 Sledgehammer wrote:
Make aircraft great again. Getting hit with flamers and charged by "flying infantry" completely took me out of the game.
Easy fixes for that:

Weapons with a base range of 12" or less cannot target aircraft. Are there any flamers with a range greater than 12" (ignoring auras/buffs).

Split "Fly" into "Fly" and "Hover". This solves all sorts of problems (like Primaris vehicles and Monoliths) without giving them unlimited movement like actual flyers.



How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 01:30:00


Post by: Leo_the_Rat


It only takes 1 bird/rock/person being sucked into the engine intake to bring down a flyer. I think making the aircraft rule have an automatic -1 to hit would be a good start to defending it from flying whatevers. If a model is designed to disable aircraft then give it a +1 to hit the aircraft (thereby nullifying the aircraft rule's defensive bonus) or, if it is specifically designed to bring down aircraft (ala an AA gun) it could have a +2 vs aircraft. People tend to forget that aircraft are not really that tough mechanically as a general rule. For those warthogs just increase either the wounds and/or toughness to represent their incredible resiliency.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 01:40:06


Post by: H.B.M.C.


Yeah but Ork players don't want everything they have hitting planes on 6's.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 01:51:52


Post by: Tygre


For tanks I would double the wounds. You plink it but its more effective to bring AT guns.

For flyers I would make it that they always count as 12" further away. So if you have a weapon, like flamers, that have less than 12" range you will almost always be out of range.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 02:05:53


Post by: techsoldaten


-1 to damage would solve it.

Bolters and lasguns would do nothing, guns that matter would still do a lot of damage.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 02:06:10


Post by: PenitentJake


How to make tanks better?

Destroy them with Admech, cannibalize them with the Tech Scavengers agenda and use the scap to build BEAUTIFUL MACHIIIIINES! 1100010101011101010!

LOL


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 03:28:31


Post by: Jarms48


 Tyran wrote:

Agree, although with the condition that T8 would be as rare as all around AV14 was, ie Land Raiders and Monoliths. I would prefer Leman Russes to be T9, because they aren't as tough as the previous mentioned vehicles.


If a Leman Russ is T9, 2+ armour against ranged attacks (3+ armour in engagement range) I'd be fine with that.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 03:31:32


Post by: ClockworkZion


 AnomanderRake wrote:
Rejigger the S/T table so small arms aren't a meaningful threat to vehicles/monsters, and make "blast" weapons only able to hit them once, and we might start getting somewhere.

Could just give vehicles a -1 damage trait against shooting (I'd argue the same for monstrous creatures as well). That takes small arms out of the equation and reduces weapons for countering elite infantry to chip damage which seems more fitting. Only reason I specify shooting is that getting next to a vehicle and doing damage it is an effective strategy in real life so the same for 40k would make sense.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 03:45:51


Post by: Gadzilla666


Changing the cap on negative modifiers to hit so that self imposed penalities stack with penalities imposed by terrain and the target (Both of which couldn't be more than -1 total) would help, considering much of the best AT is on infantry platforms, and gw is using negative to hit abilities as a way to increase many vehicles durability. Those Eradicators arriving from Strategic Reserves suddenly aren't as scary when they're hitting on 5s.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 04:04:17


Post by: jeff white


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Today I learned "immersion" isn't important in game design.

As a game designer, this is news to me. I will have great news for the office when I get back.


Yeah, I teach at a university and use role play in classes to train for critical events. Been in classrooms in universities in some way or other for thirty years. Maybe it is a generational thing, but students seem increasingly uncomfortable and unfamiliar with the use of imagination.

For vehicles, anything that reinforces what is special about armor would help IMO, e.g. facings, damage tables, something like armor value whether it is ignore ap unless of a certain value e.g. a trukk may ignore up to negative 2, a land raider up to negative 4, etc., or weapons get an ap value for armor with mechanised vehicles (as opposed to monstrous creatures) rated accordingly, e.g. a trukk may be class 2 armor because ap neg 2 can damage it, a land raider class 4 etc... also reduce weapon ranges and or make ap shooting less effective over range with diminishing ap values.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 06:05:55


Post by: blaktoof


 Arachnofiend wrote:
I dunno, a crowd of orks using jump packs to fly up to a plane and beat the crap out of the pilot sounds very 40k to me.


I support this reasoning.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 06:13:44


Post by: ClockworkZion


blaktoof wrote:
 Arachnofiend wrote:
I dunno, a crowd of orks using jump packs to fly up to a plane and beat the crap out of the pilot sounds very 40k to me.


I support this reasoning.

Quite literally how it worked in Space Marine, and it was awesome there.



How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 06:20:30


Post by: Karol


Make vehicles actually different from each other. Ork or IG stuff should have a lot of wounds, necron and marine stuff should have a lot of T, eldar stuff should be made of paper but come with all those fields, minus to hit etc. And tau should either be something in between, the bad option, or make them the flexible army. For example Your tank has a str 6 gun that shots 6 times, but if you use the 3 shot mode it gets +5inv. And let them overload all vehicles. want +4inv but make the cost real. So no +4inv for 1 MW to a tank that has 20 wounds, something substential, like you only hit on +6 next turn or main gun doesn't function because all power goes to shields etc.



 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Today I learned "immersion" isn't important in game design.

As a game designer, this is news to me. I will have great news for the office when I get back.


Well that depends on the game. People get dropped from national teams for being too immersed in to the game, in both contact and non contact games.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 06:38:39


Post by: Spoletta


Just increase the wounds and in some cases the T.
You don't need to increase them by a lot.

1-4 wounds more on vehicles would already make things much harder to take down.
Rhinos at 12 wounds, Dnaughts at 9, predators at 14, LRBT at 15... that would be enough to see them on the field.
Then increase the T to 9 on some vehicles like the Land Raiders and Monoliths.

Fixed.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 06:40:22


Post by: ClockworkZion


Spoletta wrote:
Just increase the wounds and in some cases the T.
You don't need to increase them by a lot.

1-4 wounds more on vehicles would already make things much harder to take down.
Rhinos at 12 wounds, Dnaughts at 9, predators at 14, LRBT at 15... that would be enough to see them on the field.
Then increase the T to 9 on some vehicles like the Land Raiders and Monoliths.

Fixed.

Then what, up dedicated anti tank weapons to be able to wound on something better than a 5+?


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 07:41:54


Post by: Jidmah


 Galas wrote:
I believe most vehicles just need 50% more wounds. Nothing more. That for and starters. Most infantry is gaining defensive stats, tougthness, saves, wounds. But vehicles have remained the same.

SAD


This. People are currently playing infantry because it's more durable than tanks, just make tanks as durable as infantry again - which just means adding wound to compensate for taking the full damage from anti-tank instead of losing two thirds to overkill. An entire army of lasguns plonking off a wound of a land-raider once a game would also no longer cause heart attacks for our elderly veterans if you have much more wounds to go around.

Of course, this would require some of the hard wound thresholds in rules to be adjusted, but most of those rules should be solved by keywords anyways.

I also think T9 is fine for some of the extremely heavy vehicles - if there is a titan on the board, T9 is something that anyone should be able to handle for everyone. Anything that is a baneblade, castellan or smaller should not be T9 though.

Outside of that, it's hilarious how this thread is overrun with people that are trying to fix 9th who have admitted on other threads of neither liking nor playing 9th.
You can basically ignore all posts of anyone bringing up that "flamer vs fliers" debate. Flamers suck at damaging fliers and fliers can easily stay out of their range because they are super fast. Claiming that this is a problem is essentially admitting that you have no clue about how the game works whatsoever and that you should not be participating in this debate.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 07:44:29


Post by: Spoletta


 ClockworkZion wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
Just increase the wounds and in some cases the T.
You don't need to increase them by a lot.

1-4 wounds more on vehicles would already make things much harder to take down.
Rhinos at 12 wounds, Dnaughts at 9, predators at 14, LRBT at 15... that would be enough to see them on the field.
Then increase the T to 9 on some vehicles like the Land Raiders and Monoliths.

Fixed.

Then what, up dedicated anti tank weapons to be able to wound on something better than a 5+?


STR8 weapons wounding those few very hard targets on 5 doesn't look like an issue to me.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 07:51:20


Post by: Blackie


 ClockworkZion wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
Just increase the wounds and in some cases the T.
You don't need to increase them by a lot.

1-4 wounds more on vehicles would already make things much harder to take down.
Rhinos at 12 wounds, Dnaughts at 9, predators at 14, LRBT at 15... that would be enough to see them on the field.
Then increase the T to 9 on some vehicles like the Land Raiders and Monoliths.

Fixed.

Then what, up dedicated anti tank weapons to be able to wound on something better than a 5+?


No, because today it's too easy to spam anti tank weapons. If we were in editions like 3rd-5th when a standard list had something like 6-7 anti tank shot in total (with harsh maluses on platforms if they moved) ok, but right now we have an extremely high rate of fire for anything, including high S high AP high D weapons, plus tools to enhance them.

Since reducing the dice rolling is not gonna happen, upping W, T and maybe saves it's the easiest and safest way to make tanks better. As long as we have squads of 3-5 dudes that cost 150-170 points firing 6-8 melta shots with just -1 to hit as possible harshest penalty then wounding armored tanks on 5+ sounds about right. They'd have the high AP and D values to compensate that.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 07:58:23


Post by: Jidmah


Not every faction has access to melta. Don't fall into the same trap as GW and try to fix the victim of a problem, fix the problem itself.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 08:28:07


Post by: Gadzilla666


Just increasing the price of multi-meltas would be a big help. Make it harder to bring as many without cutting into your other resources. One of the best things to happen to vehicles lately was the nerfs to Retributors.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 08:34:31


Post by: Blackie


 Jidmah wrote:
Not every faction has access to melta. Don't fall into the same trap as GW and try to fix the victim of a problem, fix the problem itself.


Yeah but even us, orks, can spam a huge amount of rokkits (Tankbustas also with re-rolls), KMB, smashas, etc.. plus tons of high quality attacks in close combat. And stratagems, or other bonus to buff them. And KMB will likely become very close to melta or drukhari lances. Not to mention that also mortal wounds exist.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 08:36:50


Post by: Togusa


I don't have any decent suggestion.

But I would like to point out that this is now the fourth edition of the game in a row that I've seen this topic come up. In the 8 years I've played, tanks have never been good.

Why is it so hard for them to get this right?


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 08:44:49


Post by: Jidmah


 Blackie wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
Not every faction has access to melta. Don't fall into the same trap as GW and try to fix the victim of a problem, fix the problem itself.


Yeah but even us, orks, can spam a huge amount of rokkits (Tankbustas also with re-rolls), KMB, smashas, etc.. plus tons of high quality attacks in close combat.

Many melee weapons and rokkits are just AP-2 though and just make up those shortcomings by doing a lot of damage.
And stratagems, or other bonus to buff them.

There aren't a lot of stratagems or buffs improving ork's anti-tank capacities that are going to survive the next codex. Hit 'em harder is the only one I can think of, most others are locked into one clan.

And KMB will likely become very close to melta or drukhari lances. Not to mention that also mortal wounds exist.

Not sure on that. "Kustom-" weapons always have struck me as overcharged overcharged plasma (yes, you read that right) rather than lance equivalents. It's probably the one kind of weapon I don't mind keeping d6 damage.
The SAG on the other hand should totally go to 3+d3


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Togusa wrote:
I don't have any decent suggestion.

But I would like to point out that this is now the fourth edition of the game in a row that I've seen this topic come up. In the 8 years I've played, tanks have never been good.

Why is it so hard for them to get this right?


They have been powerful multiple times since I've started. Then they crank up damage to handle that power and the go back to being gak again. A common criticism of editions before 8th was that armies looked like parking lots and that people wanted to play more infantry.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 08:49:49


Post by: Insularum


My usual suggestion to fall back on is bringing back the old school terminator armour (3+ save on 2D6) for heavily armoured units (i.e. <TANK> keyword), this makes attacks in the AP0/D1 - AP-1/D2 range statistically pathetic but has much less impact on high AP attacks.

Beyond armour saves, things I find immersion breaking with tanks:
1. There should be a universal standard of ram attack that is actually meaningful
2. Degrading stats should impact stats other than BS, mainly movement and potentially armour
3. Not being able to ram through crowds, particularly when it's a transport unable to get past a few blocking models


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 08:51:41


Post by: kirotheavenger


Vehicles skirt the line of being too weak and too hard to kill.

I also think 40k's approach/distribution of anti-tank weapons makes balancing vehicles against our real world expectations difficult.
The standard infantry AT weapon in most imperial armies is the lascannon.
The standard heavy anti-tank weapon wielded by Imperial tanks such as the Predator is... multiple lascannons.

So you can't set armour strong enough to shrug off man portable AT weapons without making them immune to vehicle mounted AT weapons, because the two are the same gun!

The current implementation, in theory, is the best way to resolve this discrepany. But it feels wrong and "fleshy" to a lot of people.
I also think part of the problem is GW mostly just ported over statlines when moving from 7th to 8th, whilst changing a lot about how wound and damage resolution worked.
It shouldn't take a genius to work out that statlines designed to work with older edition's mechanics don't work in 8th. Which is where a lot of the issues come from.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 09:27:43


Post by: Gadzilla666


GW isn't going to increase toughness or wounds for any vehicles that have already been updated to their 9th edition rules. Any help is going to have to come from changes to the core rules through FAQs like we just received. That's why I think a change to the cap on negative modifiers to hit would help. Vehicles can only benefit from two kinds of terrain: Obscuring and Dense. Make that Dense Cover matter, instead of just make your opponent not care if they have to move their Devastator squad in order to get all of their multi-meltas in range of your tank.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 09:31:02


Post by: Jidmah


Heavy/assault penalties should really be the one thing that stacks with everything - and I'm saying that as an ork player.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 09:58:49


Post by: Gadzilla666


It would also make vehicles ability to ignore the penalty for moving with heavy weapons more relevant. Right now it isn't much of an advantage over infantry with heavy weapons.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 10:01:38


Post by: Selfcontrol


Tanks (and many monsters) are in a bad shape because GW has been improving infantry units characteristics as a result of the new Wound Chart and AP system but didn't touch tanks and monsters for unknown reasons.

Because of the game systems, many infantry units are now more resilient than a tank/monster. It's fine for a heavy infantry unit such as a Terminator Squad, less so when an Intercessor unit of 10 models is harder to kill than a Gladiator (for example), thanks to a combination of cover, anti-tank weapons only wounding one model, etc.

It's not hard to fix tanks and monsters. GW simply has to take a close look at the number of wounds and toughness of tanks and monsters and reevaluate them.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 10:03:16


Post by: Karol


 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Just increasing the price of multi-meltas would be a big help. Make it harder to bring as many without cutting into your other resources. One of the best things to happen to vehicles lately was the nerfs to Retributors.


But then you still have the problems of dark lances and later bright lancer, and ad mecha lascannon. So vehicles still wouldn't be run, the only difference is that space marine armies would be nerfed for some reason.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 10:13:32


Post by: Spoletta


It could also be an issue of not having the full picture.

GW has introduced many counters in the current codex design to make sure that there is no single answer to every problem.

High RoF 1D weapons are countered by heavy infantries with lots of wounds which make them highly inefficient.

D2 and Dd3 weapons have been countered by putting -1D rules pretty much in every dex.

High strenght weapons have been countered by transhuman like rules.

We technically also have the rules against low RoF high damage weapons, like "Can suffer only one damage from each attack" or " Ignore the first unsaved wound each turn", but they are too few at the moment to have an impact. If the next codici introduce a few more of those effects, we could see them becoming less widespread.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 10:20:19


Post by: Karol


So when are we going to have the full picture, in the 3-4 last months of 9th edition?

Plus how would it help all the vehicles in book that are already out or have finished their design process. There aren't going to be any pro vehicles rules in the GK or 1ksons book, because we already got to see the vehicle rules for books that were designed after both of those books. And besides stuff like the SoB high commander, which clearly bears the mark of Drazhar tier of design, we don't really get much that makes regular vehicles enticing to take.


The usual stuff is good. inv saves, being undercosted, fly etc those are good things to have in 9th. A GK or 1ksons rhino is probably going to be as good as the csm or sm rhino. Unless GW decided to give vehicles in those book their own psychic powers tree.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 10:42:58


Post by: Blackie


 Jidmah wrote:

There aren't a lot of stratagems or buffs improving ork's anti-tank capacities that are going to survive the next codex. Hit 'em harder is the only one I can think of, most others are locked into one clan.



More Dakka is a nice buff for units like 10-15 tankbustas or lootas. +1BS for Morkanaut or 3 Dreads with 2+ KMBs is another great bonus.

Wreckers, Showing Off, Visions or Seizures are all klan related, just like the re-rolls for Mek Gunz, the triple re-roll from Deathskull, the bonus on rokkits from Boomboyz or +1 to hit from Freeboterz, indeed but some of them are locked with very common klans while Goffs don't really need the anti tank, and they also have Ghaz who can smash something tough.

Next codex I don't know, but I doubt that orks won't be able to throw lots of dice even from high quality shooting, they'll likely have several tools to deal with armored stuff, like all other 9th edition armies.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 11:40:09


Post by: Gadzilla666


Karol wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Just increasing the price of multi-meltas would be a big help. Make it harder to bring as many without cutting into your other resources. One of the best things to happen to vehicles lately was the nerfs to Retributors.


But then you still have the problems of dark lances and later bright lancer, and ad mecha lascannon. So vehicles still wouldn't be run, the only difference is that space marine armies would be nerfed for some reason.

DE already don't get as many Dark Lance shots per points/unit as loyalists get multi-melta shots, even less now with the nerf to Raiders. That doesn't necessarily mean that they don't need more nerfs, but I'd wait to see what the first batch does. I haven't had any experience with the buffed Admech chickens yet, but they do seem cheap for their stats.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 11:58:59


Post by: Karol


But thanks to how fly synergises with terrain they are practicaly unstoppable to deliver their guns to the enemy units or tank, no matter if they go first or second. Other armies, besides, harlequins, can not do the same thing. If they don't advance turn one, they lose on objectives, but at the same time this means they get alfa strikes by the DE player with no chance for a counter. And IMO there is no nerfs possible to fix such a style of game play. Unless by fix, we count the GW way of fixing stuff, aka making it so bad that no one plays with or against it. And I don't wish such way of fixing rules to anyone.


A ton of the stuff GW puts outs seems to be initially to cheap. And I think I have to agree with Mr CCS, that in practic it looks a lot, as if GW knew what kind of a rules they were puting out. They just generate interest in an army, to later sell people a "fix" at first in the form of a FAQ, but then the real one in form of a CA book. Gaming companies often do this too. Put out a champion or a card that is broken, and later when the sales are boosted enough. You just nerf something like Oko, with the difference that sometimes other companies say sorry or say they maybe made an error. The closest thing to , we were wrong, by GW is them saying that they were not fully satisfied .


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 12:15:20


Post by: Jidmah


Dark lances are for sure a powerful anti-tank weapon, but they aren't anywhere near the same ballpark as eradicators or MM bikes who completely invalidate any vehicle on the board.

When I play my all-vehicle ork buggy lists into DE, dark lances are the least of my worries.



How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 12:31:19


Post by: Matt Swain


My .02 thrones:

When 9e was released a compressive list of 'blast' weapons was printed defining all weapons that now had blast in 9e.

Ok, just define weapons as AC, anti construct. Most weapons would not be this. A lasgun sure isn't, a lascannon sure is.

Then list vehicles, fortifications and some other things as either light of heavy constructs.

Non AC weapons would get a -1 to AP and never wound a light construct on a wound roll of less than 5 regardless of S.

They would get no AP vs heavy constructs and require a 6 to wound.

I'd rule light a landspeeder a light construct, a land raider, well i think you can guess what it'd be.

infantry could be issued krak and melta grenades to make it possible to assault constructs more effectively. Krak grenades might lower the constructs rating by one, so a heavy construct would be treated as a light construct, and a light construct treated as a non construct, and melta bombs are AC.

And since I'm a necron player I'd rule all gauss weapons are AC since they disintegrate matter instead of penetrating armor.

Just kidding about that last bit. Maybe.



How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 12:37:43


Post by: fraser1191


I'm a big fan of vehicles just ignoring a point of damage.

Gotta overcharge plasma, meltas are basically unchanged, same for missiles, lascannons, most dedicated anti vehicle weapons.

There would need to be tweaks obviously but you can still get some glancing hits with other weapons.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 12:44:07


Post by: some bloke


Add a damage reduction mechanic to vehicles which makes heavy weapons necessary to crack them. Bake it into the reducing profiles so damaged vehicles take more damage - crack them with anti-tank, finish them with smaller weapons.

So an ork trukk might be damage reduction of 1/1/0. A leman russ might be 3/D3/1. A titan might be 4/3/2.

Then up the average damage on weapons. Make a lascannon damage 6, or 2D3. Make a meltagun 2D6 in melta range. These things should damage vehicles well and obliterate infantry.

Then you can stop the creep of toughness as a T6 landraider would still be immune to anything with a damage less than 4 anyway.


Alternatively bake an Ork Trukk's "Ramshackle" into a "Heavy Armour Save", where passing the save reduces incoming damage to 1. Then drop the wounds on vehicles across the board.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 12:46:57


Post by: The_Real_Chris


 Sledgehammer wrote:
And you think making aircraft suceptible to being destroyed by any boy who happens to be wearing a jetpack is a positive play experience? Stormboys should not be a viable anti air option, just as a lasgun shouldn't be able to be an anti tank Weapon. Ohh but Mkoll turned his lagun into a krak grenade!!!! Yeah no thanks.


For one they aren't proper fliers. A supersonic aircraft would be a blip on the game board for a few seconds as it passed overhead. You want aircraft travelling around the board? Ok those are skimmers. The idea of jump packs reaching them isn't too far fetched. I will take your ideas of what can affect fliers if you accept my flak ranges and the amount of time you are a threat over the table.

If you want 'realistic' armour, aircraft and infantry (heavy and light), you would need to play a different game. And even then the results wouldn't be what you think they would be. If you haven't seen a tank rout because the crew got scared, you wouldn't accept the idea that infantry with weapons of a minimal threat to tanks could make them run.

I prefer the old lower damage, lower defence, lower model count approach. GW wants high model counts for sale so that means high damage dealing to finish games, which means more defence for many units.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 12:54:36


Post by: Kitane


+1T to most vehicles/monsters (ideally)

And then a universal Vehicles/Monsters rule:

+1 to armor save against attacks with a strength characteristic same or lesser than the model's toughness.

That would be a significant durability buff against light and medium weapons for most vehicles and monsters.

The anti-tank weapons would be unaffected against light and medium vehicles/MCs and somewhat weakened against the heavy-weights.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 13:00:57


Post by: Matt Swain


Kitane wrote:
+1T to most vehicles/monsters (ideally)

And then a universal Vehicles/Monsters rule:

+1 to armor save against attacks with a strength characteristic same or lesser than the model's toughness.

That would be a significant durability buff against light and medium weapons for most vehicles and monsters.

The anti-tank weapons would be unaffected against light and medium vehicles/MCs and somewhat weakened against the heavy-weights.


i had my own idea, but i like yours too.

I might change yours to reduce the Ap of weapons firing at a vehicle unless their Str was at least equal to the T of the vehicle/monster. Kinda like wound rolls, the lower the strength, the higher the -AP.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 13:42:18


Post by: The_Real_Chris


So we all agree - back to 2nd ed and rolling penetration for shooting tanks

You could actually implement this is a straightforward way.

Tanks become one of two types - heavy, they have an armour value - and light, they have a toughness value.

So a sentinel stays the same (its a light vehicle), a Chimera becomes Armour value 10, a Leman Russ Armour Value 12, wounds and save are whatever.

Weapons end up with a changed stat line
Lasgun Range 24", Rapid 1, Str 3, AP -, Dmg 1
New stat - Anti Tank (AT) 4+D3
Lascannon Range 48", Heavy 1, Str 9, AP -3, Dmg D6
New stat - Anti Tank (AT) 10+D6
Boltgun Range 24", Rapid 1, Str 4, AP -, Dmg 1
New stat - Anti Tank (AT) 5+D6

After hitting the tank to wound it you have to roll over its penetration. A lasgun will only harm lightly armoured stuff, a bolter gun can threaten stuff like Chimer and Rhinos, but is useless against a tank, a lascannon almost auto penetrates something like a transport. Sv and wounds as normal.

That would result in armies needing dedicated AT weapons again rather than general purpose killers.

Orrrrr

We just go back to 1st Ed weapon profiles and massively up wound counts.

Who wants 2D6 damage AP-6 lascannon and 4D6 damage AP-4 2" blast multimalta?

For reference a Land raiders stats were below but note the 50 damage points those lascannon had to knock off.


[Thumb - LR.png]


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 13:44:58


Post by: Irbis


 Blackie wrote:
No, because today it's too easy to spam anti tank weapons. If we were in editions like 3rd-5th when a standard list had something like 6-7 anti tank shot in total (with harsh maluses on platforms if they moved) ok, but right now we have an extremely high rate of fire for anything, including high S high AP high D weapons, plus tools to enhance them.

I am not sure what 3rd-5th edition you played, because fire dragons, meltacide, quad fusion tau, twin mm land speeders (and tau fusion equivalent), lasplasback spam, BT minmax, and a lot of similar stuff were a thing and you could easily build a list just as deadly as current ones, the only difference was less netlisting and WAAAC types blaring loudly which unit is OP and should be spammed so the problem was less visible. Hell, 10 sternguard with combi weapons in drop pod could output more melta shots from DS than any unit costing similar points now can...

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Today I learned "immersion" isn't important in game design.

As a game designer, this is news to me. I will have great news for the office when I get back.

Seeing vast majority of 'muh immersion' is dumb whining stuff is no longer like it used be in 7th, garbage edition, yeah, it's best ignored by any competent game designer. Especially seeing new design is in 99% of cases vastly better across the board.

To give one particularly stupid example, blasts - the fact they now finally do something to tanks and MC really improved it. If anything, you could argue blasts should deal full hits to these targets to be 100% realistic, as they absorb much bigger portion of the explosion than infantry sized target does (and even a full horde will only barely match surface area of these targets). Old '1 hit' was comically stupid and unrealistic, HE shell from earthshaker should blast that tyranid monster to bits (or blow turret clean off Russ), not give them a scratch

Or you know, another favorite dumb whine target, facings. I am in front of the tank, and can see the side just fine, but since front glacis is hidden behind a small wall, the whole tank is suddenly untargetable? WTF?? Let's imagine tank backs up a bit and I can see the front now, but weaker side is still in range - why the hell my gun has magnet in it forcing to target strongest area? WTF?? But there is this space marine with power fist next to me who walks up to the tank and pokes the front plate - suddenly his fists teleports to the back of the tank ripping a hole there that magically causes the main gun (which is in front and above height the marine can reach) to bend - which of this idiocy is ""immersive"", exactly?

 Jidmah wrote:
Outside of that, it's hilarious how this thread is overrun with people that are trying to fix 9th who have admitted on other threads of neither liking nor playing 9th.
You can basically ignore all posts of anyone bringing up that "flamer vs fliers" debate. Flamers suck at damaging fliers and fliers can easily stay out of their range because they are super fast. Claiming that this is a problem is essentially admitting that you have no clue about how the game works whatsoever and that you should not be participating in this debate.

This. This. So much this. Whining about flamers is pretty much 200% sign of 'I am still b-hurt they dared to change stuff for the better and never played one game of 8th' or 'I lack critical thinking to the point I still parrot 4chan troll strawposts from six years ago'


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 13:47:45


Post by: Matt Swain


JFTR I sure as hell prefer 9e to 8e simply because as a necron player i didn't feel like it was my turn in the barrel so much in 9e. (I still have to use a rhoid pillow to sit in a chair after 8e...)


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 14:01:11


Post by: Unit1126PLL


 Irbis wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Today I learned "immersion" isn't important in game design.

As a game designer, this is news to me. I will have great news for the office when I get back.

Seeing vast majority of 'muh immersion' is dumb whining stuff is no longer like it used be in 7th, garbage edition, yeah, it's best ignored by any competent game designer. Especially seeing new design is in 99% of cases vastly better across the board.

To give one particularly stupid example, blasts - the fact they now finally do something to tanks and MC really improved it. If anything, you could argue blasts should deal full hits to these targets to be 100% realistic, as they absorb much bigger portion of the explosion than infantry sized target does (and even a full horde will only barely match surface area of these targets). Old '1 hit' was comically stupid and unrealistic, HE shell from earthshaker should blast that tyranid monster to bits (or blow turret clean off Russ), not give them a scratch

Agreed, which is why it was better in the editions before 7th when tanks had different ammunition types - armor piercing shells were one of my favorite doctrine upgrades for my Leman Russ tanks. Oh, and would you look at that, being able to switch ammunition types instead of firing HE at enemy heavy armor. I guess that's too immersive.

 Irbis wrote:
Or you know, another favorite dumb whine target, facings. I am in front of the tank, and can see the side just fine, but since front glacis is hidden behind a small wall, the whole tank is suddenly untargetable? WTF?? Let's imagine tank backs up a bit and I can see the front now, but weaker side is still in range - why the hell my gun has magnet in it forcing to target strongest area? WTF?? But there is this space marine with power fist next to me who walks up to the tank and pokes the front plate - suddenly his fists teleports to the back of the tank ripping a hole there that magically causes the main gun (which is in front and above height the marine can reach) to bend - which of this idiocy is ""immersive"", exactly?

So you've got your rules wrong and you don't understand your abstractions - I suppose if you deliberately go out of your way to be wrong, and then try your hardest to misunderstand what the designers STATED their intent was, you'd have a bad time with ANY wargame.

1) Obscured glacis plate + visible side = 3+ cover save, not invisible, in the core rules. This is pretty "realistic" (as realistic as anything goes in a wargame) because in this case the deflection angle to the side armor is likely pretty high. Look up "sidescraping" in a tank-sim video game and you'll see why this makes sense. Hiding your glacis and only showing your side at a steep angle is a damn good way to dramatically increase the effectiveness of your tank's armor against targets to your front.

2) Because with the way sides were designed in the game, your gun has a high deflection angle on the side armor. This sloping actually probably makes it TOUGHER than the front armor (ref: "sidescraping" again), but only making it equal seems fair. Remember, shells have a chance to ricochet (failing to bite) as well as a chance to fail to penetrate (biting, but failing to actually perforate fully through the armor). Dramatically increasing the angle of relatively thin armor can increase the ricochet chance because of the shaping of armor-piercing shells - their ability to "bite" into armor at a steep angle is low, because it requires phalanges on the edge of the shell that would make it harder to perforate in a flat impact. High-calibre guns, however, have larger phalanges, meaning they "bite" at steeper and steeper angles (or into thinner and thinner armor) which is where the concept of overmatch comes from - eventually, the calibre of the shell is large enough that it can bite into thin armor even at extreme angles.

I think that using the Front Armor rather than the extreme deflection shot on side armor is a fantastic abstraction without huge amounts of detail on this point.

3) The close-combat-hitting-rear was:
a) not present in my favorite edition (4th)
and
b) when it was present, it was explicitly stated by the designers to represent the user climbing to weaker spots of the tank (e.g. on top), something the model physically couldn't do. This was an abstraction I could live with, even though I preferred the 4th edition system.



How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 14:10:48


Post by: Sledgehammer


The_Real_Chris wrote:
 Sledgehammer wrote:
And you think making aircraft suceptible to being destroyed by any boy who happens to be wearing a jetpack is a positive play experience? Stormboys should not be a viable anti air option, just as a lasgun shouldn't be able to be an anti tank Weapon. Ohh but Mkoll turned his lagun into a krak grenade!!!! Yeah no thanks.


For one they aren't proper fliers. A supersonic aircraft would be a blip on the game board for a few seconds as it passed overhead. You want aircraft travelling around the board? Ok those are skimmers. The idea of jump packs reaching them isn't too far fetched. I will take your ideas of what can affect fliers if you accept my flak ranges and the amount of time you are a threat over the table.

If you want 'realistic' armour, aircraft and infantry (heavy and light), you would need to play a different game. And even then the results wouldn't be what you think they would be. If you haven't seen a tank rout because the crew got scared, you wouldn't accept the idea that infantry with weapons of a minimal threat to tanks could make them run.

I prefer the old lower damage, lower defence, lower model count approach. GW wants high model counts for sale so that means high damage dealing to finish games, which means more defence for many units.
I'm not asking for proper ranges, nor am I asking for a simulationist game. I'm asking for aircraft and vehicles to at least feel lile aircraft and tanks.

People are in here literally advocating for boys to able to assault flying vehicles, and for flame throwers to shoot down aircraft. These fundamentally change the way that aircraft are operated and used on the table in a negative way. The fact that aircraft have to worry about where they are on the table in association with those two units AT ALL is antithetical to aircraft behaving as aircraft. Bring your own aircraft, or bring anti aircraft if you want to fight against flyers. Don't come to me and tell me an assault unit should be swatting aircraft out of the sky.

I'd much prefer they bring back 7th edition aircraft, keep the current wound system and cap the negative modifiers to -2.



How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 14:14:28


Post by: bullyboy


For one thing, this isn't old 40K where one or two tanks were on the table. Now, GW wants you to have multiple tanks on the table (more money), so only being able to kill 1 a turn would make people spam vehicles more (the points are certainly there) and so we would be having the opposite discussion here.

Honestly, I don't think we need to change much, the meta will probably do it all for us. Sure, right now, lots of melta and dark lances. But after orks get released, I have a feeling some weapon options for players will need to change. We were all talking about how 8th was a horde meta and that early 9th was all about elite tough units (no blast effects, etc). Well, a MM/DL is just as good plinking a 4W elite as a tank and is still a solid trade off for points efficiency. Now use it vs 30+ T5 orks.

let's come back to this discussion in a few months (after sisters, admech and orks are on the table) and see if we are still in the same place.

As for fliers, I'm trying to figure out why they are considered so poor this edition? Outside of -2 to hit (which not all fliers could get, only a minority), not much has changed really.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 14:23:06


Post by: Tyran


The problem with immersion rules is that I could redesign the entire game for the sake of immersion, starting with the fight phase (starting with the inability to shoot into melee, a terminator hugging a guardsmen shouldn't stop me from firing a lascannon at him), the game was always full of things that didn't make much sense, long before 8th. Moreover what one person find immersion breaking, other find cool. See jump infantry assaulting aircraft above, which I personally find cool as hell but Sledgehammer finds immersion breaking.

As for armor facing, the system basically stopped working once you got to non box vehicles. I could support a simplified front/back system, but not the mess that was back then when I had a small discussion to determine where the "back" angle of a Knight started. And the AV system made balancing monsters vs vehicles impossible (and remember when GW forgot to give rules to flying monsters and had to be completely FAQ them into the 6th edition rulebook?). In 5th monsters sucked and vehicles were king, in 6th vehicles sucked and monsters dominated (and in 7th both sucked). Whatever fix vehicles receive, so should monsters as they are in the same situation, and because of that I dislike the AV system.









How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 14:28:34


Post by: ClockworkZion


 bullyboy wrote:
For one thing, this isn't old 40K where one or two tanks were on the table. Now, GW wants you to have multiple tanks on the table (more money), so only being able to kill 1 a turn would make people spam vehicles more (the points are certainly there) and so we would be having the opposite discussion here.

Honestly, I don't think we need to change much, the meta will probably do it all for us. Sure, right now, lots of melta and dark lances. But after orks get released, I have a feeling some weapon options for players will need to change. We were all talking about how 8th was a horde meta and that early 9th was all about elite tough units (no blast effects, etc). Well, a MM/DL is just as good plinking a 4W elite as a tank and is still a solid trade off for points efficiency. Now use it vs 30+ T5 orks.

let's come back to this discussion in a few months (after sisters, admech and orks are on the table) and see if we are still in the same place.

As for fliers, I'm trying to figure out why they are considered so poor this edition? Outside of -2 to hit (which not all fliers could get, only a minority), not much has changed really.

Points for the tanks should be lower if they're supposed to be spammed.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 14:35:16


Post by: Sgt. Cortez


Well, which old Edition are you referring to, bullyboy? I wasn't around at that time but "parking lots" seem to have been a thing since at least 5th or 4th edition.

Tanks always seem to be hard to get right. I mean for me who started in 6th they're the toughest they've ever been right now, but I get it that some feel squishy because of the firepower around or because of Ap-2 bolters that are actually dangerous (at the same time people who still whine because lasguns may kill a Land Raider should actually start playing the game and realize that's a nonsense claim).


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 14:38:49


Post by: Sledgehammer


 Tyran wrote:
The problem with immersion rules is that I could redesign the entire game for the sake of immersion, starting with the fight phase (starting with the inability to shoot into melee, a terminator hugging a guardsmen shouldn't stop me from firing a lascannon at him).

As for armor facing, the system basically stopped working once you got to non box vehicles. I could support a simplified front/back system, but not the mess that was back then.
And lastly, the AV system made balancing monsters vs vehicles impossible (and remember when GW forgot to give rules to flying monsters and had to be completely FAQ them into the 6th edition rulebook?)

In 5th monsters sucked and vehicles were king, in 6th vehicles sucked and monsters dominated (and in 7th both sucked). Whatever fix vehicles receive, so should monsters as they are in the same situation, and because of that I dislike the AV system.

EDIT: Also what one person find immersion breaking, other find cool. See jump infantry assaulting aircraft above, which I personally find cool as hell but Sledgehammer finds immersion breaking.






I don't think you should design the entire game around immersion, because at that point it becomes a simulation rather than an immersive experience. Getting bogged down in the details makes it harder for people to learn and play the game quickly. However you can often achieve a great deal of success in immersing your player without having to do so.

You could theoretically help with facing by requiring vehicles to be on a square base, but that is going to ludicrous in practice and bring in more problems than it solves. A rear armor facing value, or alternatively just a damage increase when in the rear, could quickly replicate the lighter armor in the rear. The problem is again determining the facing.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 14:43:23


Post by: Tyran


 Sledgehammer wrote:

I don't think you should design the entire game around immersion, because at that point it becomes a simulation rather than an immersive experience. Getting bogged down in the details makes it harder for people to learn and play the game quickly. However you can often achieve a great deal of success in immersing your player without having to do so.

You could theoretically help with facing by requiring vehicles to be on a square base, but that is going to ludicrous in practice and bring in more problems than it solves. A rear armor facing value, or alternatively just a damage increase when in the rear, could quickly replicate the lighter armor in the rear. The problem is again determining the facing.


The easiest way is an imaginary line horizontal to the front to the vehicle/monster. Whatever is in front of that line shoots at the front, whatever is behind shoots at the rear.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 14:47:39


Post by: Sledgehammer


 Tyran wrote:
 Sledgehammer wrote:

I don't think you should design the entire game around immersion, because at that point it becomes a simulation rather than an immersive experience. Getting bogged down in the details makes it harder for people to learn and play the game quickly. However you can often achieve a great deal of success in immersing your player without having to do so.

You could theoretically help with facing by requiring vehicles to be on a square base, but that is going to ludicrous in practice and bring in more problems than it solves. A rear armor facing value, or alternatively just a damage increase when in the rear, could quickly replicate the lighter armor in the rear. The problem is again determining the facing.


The easiest way is an imaginary line horizontal to the front to the vehicle/monster. Whatever is in front of that line shoots at the front, whatever is behind shoots at the rear.

Epic armageddon achieves this by determining whether or not you have flanked a unit. If you can draw a straight line of 45cm between your unit, the enemy unit, and another friendly unit then you get to subtract 1 from the enemy's armor save. Some vehicles have thick rear armor and ignore this like the land raider.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 14:58:04


Post by: Gadzilla666


 ClockworkZion wrote:
 bullyboy wrote:
For one thing, this isn't old 40K where one or two tanks were on the table. Now, GW wants you to have multiple tanks on the table (more money), so only being able to kill 1 a turn would make people spam vehicles more (the points are certainly there) and so we would be having the opposite discussion here.

Honestly, I don't think we need to change much, the meta will probably do it all for us. Sure, right now, lots of melta and dark lances. But after orks get released, I have a feeling some weapon options for players will need to change. We were all talking about how 8th was a horde meta and that early 9th was all about elite tough units (no blast effects, etc). Well, a MM/DL is just as good plinking a 4W elite as a tank and is still a solid trade off for points efficiency. Now use it vs 30+ T5 orks.

let's come back to this discussion in a few months (after sisters, admech and orks are on the table) and see if we are still in the same place.

As for fliers, I'm trying to figure out why they are considered so poor this edition? Outside of -2 to hit (which not all fliers could get, only a minority), not much has changed really.

Points for the tanks should be lower if they're supposed to be spammed.

No kidding. Also we need more HS slots, or more tanks need to come in squadrons. I don't think gw expects anyone to spam Land Raiders.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 14:58:23


Post by: G00fySmiley


 Sledgehammer wrote:
The_Real_Chris wrote:
 Sledgehammer wrote:
And you think making aircraft suceptible to being destroyed by any boy who happens to be wearing a jetpack is a positive play experience? Stormboys should not be a viable anti air option, just as a lasgun shouldn't be able to be an anti tank Weapon. Ohh but Mkoll turned his lagun into a krak grenade!!!! Yeah no thanks.


For one they aren't proper fliers. A supersonic aircraft would be a blip on the game board for a few seconds as it passed overhead. You want aircraft travelling around the board? Ok those are skimmers. The idea of jump packs reaching them isn't too far fetched. I will take your ideas of what can affect fliers if you accept my flak ranges and the amount of time you are a threat over the table.

If you want 'realistic' armour, aircraft and infantry (heavy and light), you would need to play a different game. And even then the results wouldn't be what you think they would be. If you haven't seen a tank rout because the crew got scared, you wouldn't accept the idea that infantry with weapons of a minimal threat to tanks could make them run.

I prefer the old lower damage, lower defence, lower model count approach. GW wants high model counts for sale so that means high damage dealing to finish games, which means more defence for many units.
I'm not asking for proper ranges, nor am I asking for a simulationist game. I'm asking for aircraft and vehicles to at least feel lile aircraft and tanks.

People are in here literally advocating for boys to able to assault flying vehicles, and for flame throwers to shoot down aircraft. These fundamentally change the way that aircraft are operated and used on the table in a negative way. The fact that aircraft have to worry about where they are on the table in association with those two units AT ALL is antithetical to aircraft behaving as aircraft. Bring your own aircraft, or bring anti aircraft if you want to fight against flyers. Don't come to me and tell me an assault unit should be swatting aircraft out of the sky.

I'd much prefer they bring back 7th edition aircraft, keep the current wound system and cap the negative modifiers to -2.



honestly an ork boy or space marine turning off any and all saftey measure (in the space marine case, the orks would never imagine such safeguards) to launch in and swing a power klaw or power fist at a vehicle is about the coolest most 40k thing i can think of. I would be down for to hit penalties but its the mental image of... "sir there is a group of orks on the wing hitting it with axes" or an ork just flying up with a big choppa taking a huge babe ruth swing to attempt to cleave off a wing, misjudge the timing and just get chopped in a jet engine is equally hilarious


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 15:04:59


Post by: Sledgehammer


 G00fySmiley wrote:
 Sledgehammer wrote:
The_Real_Chris wrote:
 Sledgehammer wrote:
And you think making aircraft suceptible to being destroyed by any boy who happens to be wearing a jetpack is a positive play experience? Stormboys should not be a viable anti air option, just as a lasgun shouldn't be able to be an anti tank Weapon. Ohh but Mkoll turned his lagun into a krak grenade!!!! Yeah no thanks.


For one they aren't proper fliers. A supersonic aircraft would be a blip on the game board for a few seconds as it passed overhead. You want aircraft travelling around the board? Ok those are skimmers. The idea of jump packs reaching them isn't too far fetched. I will take your ideas of what can affect fliers if you accept my flak ranges and the amount of time you are a threat over the table.

If you want 'realistic' armour, aircraft and infantry (heavy and light), you would need to play a different game. And even then the results wouldn't be what you think they would be. If you haven't seen a tank rout because the crew got scared, you wouldn't accept the idea that infantry with weapons of a minimal threat to tanks could make them run.

I prefer the old lower damage, lower defence, lower model count approach. GW wants high model counts for sale so that means high damage dealing to finish games, which means more defence for many units.
I'm not asking for proper ranges, nor am I asking for a simulationist game. I'm asking for aircraft and vehicles to at least feel lile aircraft and tanks.

People are in here literally advocating for boys to able to assault flying vehicles, and for flame throwers to shoot down aircraft. These fundamentally change the way that aircraft are operated and used on the table in a negative way. The fact that aircraft have to worry about where they are on the table in association with those two units AT ALL is antithetical to aircraft behaving as aircraft. Bring your own aircraft, or bring anti aircraft if you want to fight against flyers. Don't come to me and tell me an assault unit should be swatting aircraft out of the sky.

I'd much prefer they bring back 7th edition aircraft, keep the current wound system and cap the negative modifiers to -2.



honestly an ork boy or space marine turning off any and all saftey measure (in the space marine case, the orks would never imagine such safeguards) to launch in and swing a power klaw or power fist at a vehicle is about the coolest most 40k thing i can think of. I would be down for to hit penalties but its the mental image of... "sir there is a group of orks on the wing hitting it with axes" or an ork just flying up with a big choppa taking a huge babe ruth swing to attempt to cleave off a wing, misjudge the timing and just get chopped in a jet engine is equally hilarious
Is that a role that an assault unit should fill or be effective at? Why would I take an AA gun if I can take powerful assault squads that can destroy aircraft, tanks, and infantry in melee all the whilst having large potential threat ranges?


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 15:10:51


Post by: Tyran


Well there are all melee armies, not everyone has AA guns.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 15:19:12


Post by: Sledgehammer


 Tyran wrote:
Well there are all melee armies, not everyone has AA guns.
That doesn't mean we should be advocating for units to fulfill all of these roles at once. Nor are the Tyranids an entirely melee army. You shouldn't try to change the entire paradigm of unit interactions over a single codex. Gw should have given tyranids an AA weapon by now as well, but we know they're not the biggest fans of the nids.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 15:20:50


Post by: Tyran


I was thinking about Daemons. Moreover we are talking about jump melee units, not all melee units.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 15:25:04


Post by: G00fySmiley


 Sledgehammer wrote:
 G00fySmiley wrote:
 Sledgehammer wrote:
The_Real_Chris wrote:
 Sledgehammer wrote:
And you think making aircraft suceptible to being destroyed by any boy who happens to be wearing a jetpack is a positive play experience? Stormboys should not be a viable anti air option, just as a lasgun shouldn't be able to be an anti tank Weapon. Ohh but Mkoll turned his lagun into a krak grenade!!!! Yeah no thanks.


For one they aren't proper fliers. A supersonic aircraft would be a blip on the game board for a few seconds as it passed overhead. You want aircraft travelling around the board? Ok those are skimmers. The idea of jump packs reaching them isn't too far fetched. I will take your ideas of what can affect fliers if you accept my flak ranges and the amount of time you are a threat over the table.

If you want 'realistic' armour, aircraft and infantry (heavy and light), you would need to play a different game. And even then the results wouldn't be what you think they would be. If you haven't seen a tank rout because the crew got scared, you wouldn't accept the idea that infantry with weapons of a minimal threat to tanks could make them run.

I prefer the old lower damage, lower defence, lower model count approach. GW wants high model counts for sale so that means high damage dealing to finish games, which means more defence for many units.
I'm not asking for proper ranges, nor am I asking for a simulationist game. I'm asking for aircraft and vehicles to at least feel lile aircraft and tanks.

People are in here literally advocating for boys to able to assault flying vehicles, and for flame throwers to shoot down aircraft. These fundamentally change the way that aircraft are operated and used on the table in a negative way. The fact that aircraft have to worry about where they are on the table in association with those two units AT ALL is antithetical to aircraft behaving as aircraft. Bring your own aircraft, or bring anti aircraft if you want to fight against flyers. Don't come to me and tell me an assault unit should be swatting aircraft out of the sky.

I'd much prefer they bring back 7th edition aircraft, keep the current wound system and cap the negative modifiers to -2.



honestly an ork boy or space marine turning off any and all saftey measure (in the space marine case, the orks would never imagine such safeguards) to launch in and swing a power klaw or power fist at a vehicle is about the coolest most 40k thing i can think of. I would be down for to hit penalties but its the mental image of... "sir there is a group of orks on the wing hitting it with axes" or an ork just flying up with a big choppa taking a huge babe ruth swing to attempt to cleave off a wing, misjudge the timing and just get chopped in a jet engine is equally hilarious
Is that a role that an assault unit should fill or be effective at? Why would I take an AA gun if I can take powerful assault squads that can destroy aircraft, tanks, and infantry in melee all the whilst having large potential threat ranges?


AA guns should be an option for some armies sure, but why should it be the only answer? is there a reason a group of Eldar swooping hawks who fly quite fast can't fly alongside a plane and throw some distortion grenades up close at it just because they could have taken an anti aircraft gun elsewhere in the army? because the ork zzap gun exists does that mean that the rokkit boy can't decide to yolo jet pack up to try and hit a plane with a choppa?


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 15:31:18


Post by: Sledgehammer


 G00fySmiley wrote:
 Sledgehammer wrote:
 G00fySmiley wrote:
 Sledgehammer wrote:
The_Real_Chris wrote:
 Sledgehammer wrote:
And you think making aircraft suceptible to being destroyed by any boy who happens to be wearing a jetpack is a positive play experience? Stormboys should not be a viable anti air option, just as a lasgun shouldn't be able to be an anti tank Weapon. Ohh but Mkoll turned his lagun into a krak grenade!!!! Yeah no thanks.


For one they aren't proper fliers. A supersonic aircraft would be a blip on the game board for a few seconds as it passed overhead. You want aircraft travelling around the board? Ok those are skimmers. The idea of jump packs reaching them isn't too far fetched. I will take your ideas of what can affect fliers if you accept my flak ranges and the amount of time you are a threat over the table.

If you want 'realistic' armour, aircraft and infantry (heavy and light), you would need to play a different game. And even then the results wouldn't be what you think they would be. If you haven't seen a tank rout because the crew got scared, you wouldn't accept the idea that infantry with weapons of a minimal threat to tanks could make them run.

I prefer the old lower damage, lower defence, lower model count approach. GW wants high model counts for sale so that means high damage dealing to finish games, which means more defence for many units.
I'm not asking for proper ranges, nor am I asking for a simulationist game. I'm asking for aircraft and vehicles to at least feel lile aircraft and tanks.

People are in here literally advocating for boys to able to assault flying vehicles, and for flame throwers to shoot down aircraft. These fundamentally change the way that aircraft are operated and used on the table in a negative way. The fact that aircraft have to worry about where they are on the table in association with those two units AT ALL is antithetical to aircraft behaving as aircraft. Bring your own aircraft, or bring anti aircraft if you want to fight against flyers. Don't come to me and tell me an assault unit should be swatting aircraft out of the sky.

I'd much prefer they bring back 7th edition aircraft, keep the current wound system and cap the negative modifiers to -2.



honestly an ork boy or space marine turning off any and all saftey measure (in the space marine case, the orks would never imagine such safeguards) to launch in and swing a power klaw or power fist at a vehicle is about the coolest most 40k thing i can think of. I would be down for to hit penalties but its the mental image of... "sir there is a group of orks on the wing hitting it with axes" or an ork just flying up with a big choppa taking a huge babe ruth swing to attempt to cleave off a wing, misjudge the timing and just get chopped in a jet engine is equally hilarious
Is that a role that an assault unit should fill or be effective at? Why would I take an AA gun if I can take powerful assault squads that can destroy aircraft, tanks, and infantry in melee all the whilst having large potential threat ranges?


AA guns should be an option for some armies sure, but why should it be the only answer? is there a reason a group of Eldar swooping hawks who fly quite fast can't fly alongside a plane and throw some distortion grenades up close at it just because they could have taken an anti aircraft gun elsewhere in the army? because the ork zzap gun exists does that mean that the rokkit boy can't decide to yolo jet pack up to try and hit a plane with a choppa?
Yes because it fundamentally gives those units far too much utility in what they can do and deprives the game of a sense of combined arms. They can ignore terrain, they can very effectively destroy both tanks and infantry, are great at taking objectives, can move at decent speeds (especially on the smaller board sizes now) and now can act as an anti aircraft unit? It's the exact opposite of what you'd want in a game where the tactics should be where and how you use your units. Combined arms is what made 40k tactical. When every unit can damage everything you remove that entire CRITICAL aspect from the game. It also just functionally affects players tactics in a way that reinforces the player to sit back and shoot with their aircraft. I remeber in 8th my Valkyries just hovered all game in my back line because they were penalized for moving and shooting, and would just be charged by jump infantry if I moved them closer. You've functionally created systems that reward aircraft for not acting like aircraft.

Other aircraft / flying monsters and Anti Aircraft weaponry fulfill the role of keeping the skies clear. Jump infantry should not.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 15:46:50


Post by: G00fySmiley


 Sledgehammer wrote:
 G00fySmiley wrote:
 Sledgehammer wrote:
 G00fySmiley wrote:
 Sledgehammer wrote:
The_Real_Chris wrote:
 Sledgehammer wrote:
And you think making aircraft suceptible to being destroyed by any boy who happens to be wearing a jetpack is a positive play experience? Stormboys should not be a viable anti air option, just as a lasgun shouldn't be able to be an anti tank Weapon. Ohh but Mkoll turned his lagun into a krak grenade!!!! Yeah no thanks.


For one they aren't proper fliers. A supersonic aircraft would be a blip on the game board for a few seconds as it passed overhead. You want aircraft travelling around the board? Ok those are skimmers. The idea of jump packs reaching them isn't too far fetched. I will take your ideas of what can affect fliers if you accept my flak ranges and the amount of time you are a threat over the table.

If you want 'realistic' armour, aircraft and infantry (heavy and light), you would need to play a different game. And even then the results wouldn't be what you think they would be. If you haven't seen a tank rout because the crew got scared, you wouldn't accept the idea that infantry with weapons of a minimal threat to tanks could make them run.

I prefer the old lower damage, lower defence, lower model count approach. GW wants high model counts for sale so that means high damage dealing to finish games, which means more defence for many units.
I'm not asking for proper ranges, nor am I asking for a simulationist game. I'm asking for aircraft and vehicles to at least feel lile aircraft and tanks.

People are in here literally advocating for boys to able to assault flying vehicles, and for flame throwers to shoot down aircraft. These fundamentally change the way that aircraft are operated and used on the table in a negative way. The fact that aircraft have to worry about where they are on the table in association with those two units AT ALL is antithetical to aircraft behaving as aircraft. Bring your own aircraft, or bring anti aircraft if you want to fight against flyers. Don't come to me and tell me an assault unit should be swatting aircraft out of the sky.

I'd much prefer they bring back 7th edition aircraft, keep the current wound system and cap the negative modifiers to -2.



honestly an ork boy or space marine turning off any and all saftey measure (in the space marine case, the orks would never imagine such safeguards) to launch in and swing a power klaw or power fist at a vehicle is about the coolest most 40k thing i can think of. I would be down for to hit penalties but its the mental image of... "sir there is a group of orks on the wing hitting it with axes" or an ork just flying up with a big choppa taking a huge babe ruth swing to attempt to cleave off a wing, misjudge the timing and just get chopped in a jet engine is equally hilarious
Is that a role that an assault unit should fill or be effective at? Why would I take an AA gun if I can take powerful assault squads that can destroy aircraft, tanks, and infantry in melee all the whilst having large potential threat ranges?


AA guns should be an option for some armies sure, but why should it be the only answer? is there a reason a group of Eldar swooping hawks who fly quite fast can't fly alongside a plane and throw some distortion grenades up close at it just because they could have taken an anti aircraft gun elsewhere in the army? because the ork zzap gun exists does that mean that the rokkit boy can't decide to yolo jet pack up to try and hit a plane with a choppa?
Yes because it fundamentally gives those units far too much utility in what they can do and deprives the game of a sense of combined arms. They can ignore terrain, they can very effectively destroy both tanks and infantry, are great at taking objectives, can move at decent speeds (especially on the smaller board sizes now) and now can act as an anti aircraft unit? It's the exact opposite of what you'd want in a game where the tactics should be where and how you use your units. Combined arms is what made 40k tactical. When every unit can damage everything you remove that entire CRITICAL aspect from the game. It also just functionally affects players tactics in a way that reinforces the player to sit back and shoot with their aircraft. I remeber in 8th my Valkyries just hovered all game in my back line because they were penalized for moving and shooting, and would just be charged by jump infantry if I moved them closer. You've functionally created systems that reward aircraft for not acting like aircraft.

Other aircraft / flying monsters and Anti Aircraft weaponry fulfill the role of keeping the skies clear. Jump infantry should not.


for games purposes you bake it into the points. an ork boy is 8 points, and has the same 6+ armor save and statline as a stormboy other than movement. For 12 points (50% increase) you get 12" movement and the ability to assault fliers (also they sometimes blow themselves up in movement).


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 15:56:04


Post by: Sledgehammer


 G00fySmiley wrote:
 Sledgehammer wrote:
 G00fySmiley wrote:
 Sledgehammer wrote:
 G00fySmiley wrote:
 Sledgehammer wrote:
The_Real_Chris wrote:
 Sledgehammer wrote:
And you think making aircraft suceptible to being destroyed by any boy who happens to be wearing a jetpack is a positive play experience? Stormboys should not be a viable anti air option, just as a lasgun shouldn't be able to be an anti tank Weapon. Ohh but Mkoll turned his lagun into a krak grenade!!!! Yeah no thanks.


For one they aren't proper fliers. A supersonic aircraft would be a blip on the game board for a few seconds as it passed overhead. You want aircraft travelling around the board? Ok those are skimmers. The idea of jump packs reaching them isn't too far fetched. I will take your ideas of what can affect fliers if you accept my flak ranges and the amount of time you are a threat over the table.

If you want 'realistic' armour, aircraft and infantry (heavy and light), you would need to play a different game. And even then the results wouldn't be what you think they would be. If you haven't seen a tank rout because the crew got scared, you wouldn't accept the idea that infantry with weapons of a minimal threat to tanks could make them run.

I prefer the old lower damage, lower defence, lower model count approach. GW wants high model counts for sale so that means high damage dealing to finish games, which means more defence for many units.
I'm not asking for proper ranges, nor am I asking for a simulationist game. I'm asking for aircraft and vehicles to at least feel lile aircraft and tanks.

People are in here literally advocating for boys to able to assault flying vehicles, and for flame throwers to shoot down aircraft. These fundamentally change the way that aircraft are operated and used on the table in a negative way. The fact that aircraft have to worry about where they are on the table in association with those two units AT ALL is antithetical to aircraft behaving as aircraft. Bring your own aircraft, or bring anti aircraft if you want to fight against flyers. Don't come to me and tell me an assault unit should be swatting aircraft out of the sky.

I'd much prefer they bring back 7th edition aircraft, keep the current wound system and cap the negative modifiers to -2.



honestly an ork boy or space marine turning off any and all saftey measure (in the space marine case, the orks would never imagine such safeguards) to launch in and swing a power klaw or power fist at a vehicle is about the coolest most 40k thing i can think of. I would be down for to hit penalties but its the mental image of... "sir there is a group of orks on the wing hitting it with axes" or an ork just flying up with a big choppa taking a huge babe ruth swing to attempt to cleave off a wing, misjudge the timing and just get chopped in a jet engine is equally hilarious
Is that a role that an assault unit should fill or be effective at? Why would I take an AA gun if I can take powerful assault squads that can destroy aircraft, tanks, and infantry in melee all the whilst having large potential threat ranges?


AA guns should be an option for some armies sure, but why should it be the only answer? is there a reason a group of Eldar swooping hawks who fly quite fast can't fly alongside a plane and throw some distortion grenades up close at it just because they could have taken an anti aircraft gun elsewhere in the army? because the ork zzap gun exists does that mean that the rokkit boy can't decide to yolo jet pack up to try and hit a plane with a choppa?
Yes because it fundamentally gives those units far too much utility in what they can do and deprives the game of a sense of combined arms. They can ignore terrain, they can very effectively destroy both tanks and infantry, are great at taking objectives, can move at decent speeds (especially on the smaller board sizes now) and now can act as an anti aircraft unit? It's the exact opposite of what you'd want in a game where the tactics should be where and how you use your units. Combined arms is what made 40k tactical. When every unit can damage everything you remove that entire CRITICAL aspect from the game. It also just functionally affects players tactics in a way that reinforces the player to sit back and shoot with their aircraft. I remeber in 8th my Valkyries just hovered all game in my back line because they were penalized for moving and shooting, and would just be charged by jump infantry if I moved them closer. You've functionally created systems that reward aircraft for not acting like aircraft.

Other aircraft / flying monsters and Anti Aircraft weaponry fulfill the role of keeping the skies clear. Jump infantry should not.


for games purposes you bake it into the points. an ork boy is 8 points, and has the same 6+ armor save and statline as a stormboy other than movement. For 12 points (50% increase) you get 12" movement and the ability to assault fliers (also they sometimes blow themselves up in movement).
Allowing those kind of unit interactions at all creates fundamentally negative play experiences that work in direct opposition to combined arms tactics. This is the current problem with both tanks and aircraft distilled into a single point.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 16:02:24


Post by: Tyran


Except that no everyone utilizes combined arms tactics in 40k. e.g Daemons, and to a lesser extent Custodes.

I think the new Godblight novel even highlights the fact that Daemons use medieval era tactics and formations against tanks, and they somehow work.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 16:07:09


Post by: G00fySmiley


allowign those interaction is one of the things i liek most about 40k. clearly what makes it a "fundamentally negative play experiences" to you is quite different for me. from a game perspective i would hate to see the game move into paper rock sissors on lists where if you didn't bring the right counters you have not only a disadvantage but no way to deal with lists.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 16:10:09


Post by: Sledgehammer


 Tyran wrote:
Except that no everyone utilizes combined arms tactics in 40k. e.g Daemons, and to a lesser extent Custodes.

I think the new Godblight novel even highlights the fact that Daemons use medieval era tactics and formations against tanks, and they somehow work.
If we're going to start advocating for rules on the tabletop to make entirely melee armies capable of killing anything and everything including fliers and tanks, viable, then I have no interest in 40k. Just move your units across the table top and try to stay behind cover, roll your charge dice and win.

No need to think about how to get your anti tank units into position, just charge! No need to figure out how to get your infantry unit to get a flank on the enemy. Just move them up and charge! Just deep strike, use my stratagems, and army bonuses to get a charge!

The idea of combined arms is to prevent people from bringing solo lists and creates a more dynamic play experience.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 16:17:39


Post by: ClockworkZion


I don't get the arguements for jump infantry not being able to assault aircraft. Then again, I rather liked that sequence from Space Marine and thought it fit the universe.

At least we're not in 5th ed where all plames where skimmers and could be assaulted by anyone.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 16:23:32


Post by: JNAProductions


 Sledgehammer wrote:
 Tyran wrote:
Except that no everyone utilizes combined arms tactics in 40k. e.g Daemons, and to a lesser extent Custodes.

I think the new Godblight novel even highlights the fact that Daemons use medieval era tactics and formations against tanks, and they somehow work.
If we're going to start advocating for rules on the tabletop to make entirely melee armies capable of killing anything and everything including fliers and tanks, viable, then I have no interest in 40k. Just move your units across the table top and try to stay behind cover, roll your charge dice and win.

No need to think about how to get your anti tank units into position, just charge! No need to figure out how to get your infantry unit to get a flank on the enemy. Just move them up and charge! Just deep strike, use my stratagems, and army bonuses to get a charge!

The idea of combined arms is to prevent people from bringing solo lists and creates a more dynamic play experience.
One of two things can happen, then:

1) Suck it up and realize that, at least starting with 8th if not sooner, melee armies are harder to use than shooting armies.
2) Give Daemons a lot more options.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 16:28:17


Post by: G00fySmiley


 ClockworkZion wrote:
I don't get the arguements for jump infantry not being able to assault aircraft. Then again, I rather liked that sequence from Space Marine and thought it fit the universe.

At least we're not in 5th ed where all plames where skimmers and could be assaulted by anyone.


the crux seems to be in the world where they travel through hell to travel faster than light speed, where technology and sorcery are inter-twined, where demons or space elves can invade out of a tear in reality that it... breaks reality for a jet pack unit to hit a plane


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 16:41:40


Post by: Sledgehammer


 G00fySmiley wrote:
 ClockworkZion wrote:
I don't get the arguements for jump infantry not being able to assault aircraft. Then again, I rather liked that sequence from Space Marine and thought it fit the universe.

At least we're not in 5th ed where all plames where skimmers and could be assaulted by anyone.


the crux seems to be in the world where they travel through hell to travel faster than light speed, where technology and sorcery are inter-twined, where demons or space elves can invade out of a tear in reality that it... breaks reality for a jet pack unit to hit a plane
In order for a fantasy setting to be engaging and allow for its audience to suspend disbelief you must adhere to your own internal set of rules. If you consistently break those rules you break the suspension of disbelief. Designing a game around edge cases is fundamentally bad for the universe as a whole.

I mean, let's make stormboyz a unit in aeronautica imperalis and saint celestine a unit in battle fleet gothic!


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 16:48:47


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Yeah.

Immersion is a thing.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 16:51:45


Post by: Gadzilla666


 Sledgehammer wrote:
 G00fySmiley wrote:
 ClockworkZion wrote:
I don't get the arguements for jump infantry not being able to assault aircraft. Then again, I rather liked that sequence from Space Marine and thought it fit the universe.

At least we're not in 5th ed where all plames where skimmers and could be assaulted by anyone.


the crux seems to be in the world where they travel through hell to travel faster than light speed, where technology and sorcery are inter-twined, where demons or space elves can invade out of a tear in reality that it... breaks reality for a jet pack unit to hit a plane
In order for a fantasy setting to be engaging and allow for its audience to suspend disbelief you must adhere to your own internal set of rules. If you consistently break those rules you break the suspension of disbelief. Designing a game around edge cases is fundamentally bad for the universe as a whole.

I mean, let's make stormboyz a unit in aeronautica imperalis and saint celestine a unit in battle fleet gothic!

And the "internal rules" of the 40k universe says that flying infantry can tear aircraft from the sky. Because that's cool, and the Number One rule of 40k is the Rule of Cool.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 16:54:10


Post by: Sledgehammer


 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 Sledgehammer wrote:
 G00fySmiley wrote:
 ClockworkZion wrote:
I don't get the arguements for jump infantry not being able to assault aircraft. Then again, I rather liked that sequence from Space Marine and thought it fit the universe.

At least we're not in 5th ed where all plames where skimmers and could be assaulted by anyone.


the crux seems to be in the world where they travel through hell to travel faster than light speed, where technology and sorcery are inter-twined, where demons or space elves can invade out of a tear in reality that it... breaks reality for a jet pack unit to hit a plane
In order for a fantasy setting to be engaging and allow for its audience to suspend disbelief you must adhere to your own internal set of rules. If you consistently break those rules you break the suspension of disbelief. Designing a game around edge cases is fundamentally bad for the universe as a whole.

I mean, let's make stormboyz a unit in aeronautica imperalis and saint celestine a unit in battle fleet gothic!

And the "internal rules" of the 40k universe says that flying infantry can tear aircraft from the sky. Because that's cool, and the Number One rule of 40k is the Rule of Cool.
Lets add storm boys to aeronautica! They're viable anti aircraft after all!


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 16:54:42


Post by: Tyran


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah.

Immersion is a thing.
Immersion is also subjective.

Sledgehammer thinks stormboys charging an aircraft is an edge case, others do not think that.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 16:55:07


Post by: Siegfriedfr


With the current rules and deadly anti-tank weaponry being thrown out like candies, i think all tanks toughness should be upscaled by 1; with the rhino chassis starting at T8, and T8 tanks becoming T9 etc.

Also, i think there should be a core rule, built-in -1 damage, from bolter/flamer weapons when targeting a T7+ target.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 16:56:39


Post by: Tyran


 Sledgehammer wrote:
Lets add storm boys to aeronautica! They're viable anti aircraft after all!

Sure, Aeronautica is a painfully incomplete game anyways.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 16:57:46


Post by: G00fySmiley


 Sledgehammer wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 Sledgehammer wrote:
 G00fySmiley wrote:
 ClockworkZion wrote:
I don't get the arguements for jump infantry not being able to assault aircraft. Then again, I rather liked that sequence from Space Marine and thought it fit the universe.

At least we're not in 5th ed where all plames where skimmers and could be assaulted by anyone.


the crux seems to be in the world where they travel through hell to travel faster than light speed, where technology and sorcery are inter-twined, where demons or space elves can invade out of a tear in reality that it... breaks reality for a jet pack unit to hit a plane
In order for a fantasy setting to be engaging and allow for its audience to suspend disbelief you must adhere to your own internal set of rules. If you consistently break those rules you break the suspension of disbelief. Designing a game around edge cases is fundamentally bad for the universe as a whole.

I mean, let's make stormboyz a unit in aeronautica imperalis and saint celestine a unit in battle fleet gothic!

And the "internal rules" of the 40k universe says that flying infantry can tear aircraft from the sky. Because that's cool, and the Number One rule of 40k is the Rule of Cool.
Lets add storm boys to aeronautica! They're viable anti aircraft after all!


that might make me actually pick up the game where i currently have very little interest in it.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 16:58:29


Post by: Grey Templar


They need to go back to how vehicles used to be in terms of how you damaged them. Str vs Armor Value based on facing. Maybe you keep the wounds and melee stats of vehicles, but vehicles using Toughness has to go because otherwise we have the current model where the best weapon to kill an Imperial Knight is a bunch of lasguns.

At least back then, vehicles felt like vehicles. Maybe it was a little messy determining facing sometimes, but its better than it is now.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 17:01:26


Post by: Unit1126PLL


 Tyran wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah.

Immersion is a thing.
Immersion is also subjective.

Sledgehammer thinks stormboys charging an aircraft is an edge case, others do not think that.


Depends on the aircraft. 200mph valkyries? Fine. Supersonic space-capable orbital bombers? less fine.

But your game needs greater granularity for that


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 17:03:58


Post by: Tyran


Aren't those what used to be apocalypse only?

That stuff never fitted in the TT anyway.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 17:09:20


Post by: bullyboy


 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 ClockworkZion wrote:
 bullyboy wrote:
For one thing, this isn't old 40K where one or two tanks were on the table. Now, GW wants you to have multiple tanks on the table (more money), so only being able to kill 1 a turn would make people spam vehicles more (the points are certainly there) and so we would be having the opposite discussion here.

Honestly, I don't think we need to change much, the meta will probably do it all for us. Sure, right now, lots of melta and dark lances. But after orks get released, I have a feeling some weapon options for players will need to change. We were all talking about how 8th was a horde meta and that early 9th was all about elite tough units (no blast effects, etc). Well, a MM/DL is just as good plinking a 4W elite as a tank and is still a solid trade off for points efficiency. Now use it vs 30+ T5 orks.

let's come back to this discussion in a few months (after sisters, admech and orks are on the table) and see if we are still in the same place.

As for fliers, I'm trying to figure out why they are considered so poor this edition? Outside of -2 to hit (which not all fliers could get, only a minority), not much has changed really.

Points for the tanks should be lower if they're supposed to be spammed.

No kidding. Also we need more HS slots, or more tanks need to come in squadrons. I don't think gw expects anyone to spam Land Raiders.


Tanks can be spammed now but the incentive isn't there. Gun transports are a thing and if we upped the durability too much, we could easily see 8-10 tanks per side. I think 4 or 5 is about right for this size game (even more so because of the smaller table suze)


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 17:09:39


Post by: AnomanderRake


 Tyran wrote:
Aren't those what used to be apocalypse only?

That stuff never fitted in the TT anyway.


Not since 4th. 5e brought in a bunch of flyers as fast skimmers with 36" turbo-boost (the Valkyrie, Razorwing, Night Scythe/Doom Scythe, and Stormraven at least are from this period), which is why their durability got so badly inflated (a 4e Valkyrie was 175pts for 11-11-10, a 5e Valkyrie was 100pts for 12-12-10) that they're now just really fast tanks.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 17:10:40


Post by: Sledgehammer


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 Tyran wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah.

Immersion is a thing.
Immersion is also subjective.

Sledgehammer thinks stormboys charging an aircraft is an edge case, others do not think that.


Depends on the aircraft. 200mph valkyries? Fine. Supersonic space-capable orbital bombers? less fine.

But your game needs greater granularity for that
Try 1100 KPH according to both wikis.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 17:16:00


Post by: Tyran


 AnomanderRake wrote:

Not since 4th. 5e brought in a bunch of flyers as fast skimmers with 36" turbo-boost (the Valkyrie, Razorwing, Night Scythe/Doom Scythe, and Stormraven at least are from this period), which is why their durability got so badly inflated (a 4e Valkyrie was 175pts for 11-11-10, a 5e Valkyrie was 100pts for 12-12-10) that they're now just really fast tanks.


With the arguable exception of the Necron craft, all those are atmospheric aircraft, not space capable bombers meant to take on capital ships (or reduce hive cities to irradiated mushroom clouds).


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 17:19:30


Post by: JNAProductions


 Sledgehammer wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 Tyran wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah.

Immersion is a thing.
Immersion is also subjective.

Sledgehammer thinks stormboys charging an aircraft is an edge case, others do not think that.


Depends on the aircraft. 200mph valkyries? Fine. Supersonic space-capable orbital bombers? less fine.

But your game needs greater granularity for that
Try 1100 KPH according to both wikis.
How large are the battlefields, in-universe?

If a flyer moves at 1,100 KPH, and a Marine moves at anywhere from 30 MPH to 60 MPH (48-96 KPH)... We'll round the Marines up to 100 KPH.

A Marine moves 6" and stays combat capable.
They move 7-12" while giving up shooting and charging, unless Assault weapons/White Scars/etc.
We'll call the Marine's 6" move their 50 KPH, and their 12" 100 KPH.

So, a Valkyrie moving at 1,100 KPH should move at least 132" on the table.
The table is, assuming an old 6' by 4' table, just over 86" across on the diagonal.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 17:22:20


Post by: Sledgehammer


 JNAProductions wrote:
 Sledgehammer wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 Tyran wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah.

Immersion is a thing.
Immersion is also subjective.

Sledgehammer thinks stormboys charging an aircraft is an edge case, others do not think that.


Depends on the aircraft. 200mph valkyries? Fine. Supersonic space-capable orbital bombers? less fine.

But your game needs greater granularity for that
Try 1100 KPH according to both wikis.
How large are the battlefields, in-universe?

If a flyer moves at 1,100 KPH, and a Marine moves at anywhere from 30 MPH to 60 MPH (48-96 KPH)... We'll round the Marines up to 100 KPH.

A Marine moves 6" and stays combat capable.
They move 7-12" while giving up shooting and charging, unless Assault weapons/White Scars/etc.
We'll call the Marine's 6" move their 50 KPH, and their 12" 100 KPH.

So, a Valkyrie moving at 1,100 KPH should move at least 132" on the table.
The table is, assuming an old 6' by 4' table, just over 86" across on the diagonal.
Which is why assault infantry shouldn't be able to assault aircraft unless they're in hover.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 17:24:26


Post by: Tyran


 JNAProductions wrote:
How large are the battlefields, in-universe?

If a flyer moves at 1,100 KPH, and a Marine moves at anywhere from 30 MPH to 60 MPH (48-96 KPH)... We'll round the Marines up to 100 KPH.

A Marine moves 6" and stays combat capable.
They move 7-12" while giving up shooting and charging, unless Assault weapons/White Scars/etc.
We'll call the Marine's 6" move their 50 KPH, and their 12" 100 KPH.

So, a Valkyrie moving at 1,100 KPH should move at least 132" on the table.
The table is, assuming an old 6' by 4' table, just over 86" across on the diagonal.


You got it backwards, interpolating from a 1100 KPH Valkyrie moving 65" a turn, we get that Space Marines can Naruto Run at 200 KPH.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 17:24:36


Post by: Gadzilla666


 bullyboy wrote:
Spoiler:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 ClockworkZion wrote:
 bullyboy wrote:
For one thing, this isn't old 40K where one or two tanks were on the table. Now, GW wants you to have multiple tanks on the table (more money), so only being able to kill 1 a turn would make people spam vehicles more (the points are certainly there) and so we would be having the opposite discussion here.

Honestly, I don't think we need to change much, the meta will probably do it all for us. Sure, right now, lots of melta and dark lances. But after orks get released, I have a feeling some weapon options for players will need to change. We were all talking about how 8th was a horde meta and that early 9th was all about elite tough units (no blast effects, etc). Well, a MM/DL is just as good plinking a 4W elite as a tank and is still a solid trade off for points efficiency. Now use it vs 30+ T5 orks.

let's come back to this discussion in a few months (after sisters, admech and orks are on the table) and see if we are still in the same place.

As for fliers, I'm trying to figure out why they are considered so poor this edition? Outside of -2 to hit (which not all fliers could get, only a minority), not much has changed really.

Points for the tanks should be lower if they're supposed to be spammed.

No kidding. Also we need more HS slots, or more tanks need to come in squadrons. I don't think gw expects anyone to spam Land Raiders.


Tanks can be spammed now but the incentive isn't there. Gun transports are a thing and if we upped the durability too much, we could easily see 8-10 tanks per side. I think 4 or 5 is about right for this size game (even more so because of the smaller table suze)

Ah, the "Razorback Problem". Easy fix: remove them from Dedicated Transports and put them into Heavy Support, same as Land Raiders. Never understood why those things were Dedicated Transports in the first place. And for the record, I haven't been suggesting anything like upping things to T9, but decreasing general lethality by changing the cap on negative modifiers to hit and giving points bumps to some super efficient AT units.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 17:27:08


Post by: JNAProductions


Spoiler:
 Sledgehammer wrote:
 JNAProductions wrote:
 Sledgehammer wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 Tyran wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah.

Immersion is a thing.
Immersion is also subjective.

Sledgehammer thinks stormboys charging an aircraft is an edge case, others do not think that.


Depends on the aircraft. 200mph valkyries? Fine. Supersonic space-capable orbital bombers? less fine.

But your game needs greater granularity for that
Try 1100 KPH according to both wikis.
How large are the battlefields, in-universe?

If a flyer moves at 1,100 KPH, and a Marine moves at anywhere from 30 MPH to 60 MPH (48-96 KPH)... We'll round the Marines up to 100 KPH.

A Marine moves 6" and stays combat capable.
They move 7-12" while giving up shooting and charging, unless Assault weapons/White Scars/etc.
We'll call the Marine's 6" move their 50 KPH, and their 12" 100 KPH.

So, a Valkyrie moving at 1,100 KPH should move at least 132" on the table.
The table is, assuming an old 6' by 4' table, just over 86" across on the diagonal.
Which is why assault infantry shouldn't be able to assault aircraft unless they're in hover.
Aircraft shouldn't spend more than a singular turn on the table then, unless they're hovering. If they enter at exactly the corner, and move to the opposite corner, they still have over a third of their move left to keep going to maintain speed.
If they enter on the long side and only have to cross 4', then they can cross two entire tables with move to spare.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 17:29:15


Post by: Sledgehammer


 JNAProductions wrote:
Spoiler:
 Sledgehammer wrote:
 JNAProductions wrote:
 Sledgehammer wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 Tyran wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah.

Immersion is a thing.
Immersion is also subjective.

Sledgehammer thinks stormboys charging an aircraft is an edge case, others do not think that.


Depends on the aircraft. 200mph valkyries? Fine. Supersonic space-capable orbital bombers? less fine.

But your game needs greater granularity for that
Try 1100 KPH according to both wikis.
How large are the battlefields, in-universe?

If a flyer moves at 1,100 KPH, and a Marine moves at anywhere from 30 MPH to 60 MPH (48-96 KPH)... We'll round the Marines up to 100 KPH.

A Marine moves 6" and stays combat capable.
They move 7-12" while giving up shooting and charging, unless Assault weapons/White Scars/etc.
We'll call the Marine's 6" move their 50 KPH, and their 12" 100 KPH.

So, a Valkyrie moving at 1,100 KPH should move at least 132" on the table.
The table is, assuming an old 6' by 4' table, just over 86" across on the diagonal.
Which is why assault infantry shouldn't be able to assault aircraft unless they're in hover.
Aircraft shouldn't spend more than a singular turn on the table then, unless they're hovering. If they enter at exactly the corner, and move to the opposite corner, they still have over a third of their move left to keep going to maintain speed.
If they enter on the long side and only have to cross 4', then they can cross two entire tables with move to spare.
Epic Armageddon does this, while still allowing anti air and other aircraft to interact with each other. It's much better overall.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 17:32:07


Post by: Tyran


Epic Armageddon is an entirely different scale, it makes sense it would do it better, it has way more space to do it.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 17:39:13


Post by: Sledgehammer


 Tyran wrote:
Epic Armageddon is an entirely different scale, it makes sense it would do it better, it has way more space to do it.
You're correct, but 7th also showed at the very least that aircraft can have a role and be distinguished from other units in a much more immersive and satisfactory way than it is now.

Arguing against units having combat roles in a combined arms system is a detriment to the game as a whole. This goes for tanks and aircraft. Rules that reward aircraft for staying stationary, and to not fly around the board are fundamentally bad.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 17:43:49


Post by: leerm02


It seems that most suggestions either revolve around increasing stats (wounds, toughness, saves) or major additions like armor facing.

For my two cents: I like the modest new universal rules ideas the best (like the person who suggested just a flat -1d to vehicles).

Regardless, it seems like this really is a tricky issue with a lot of balance potential. I'm personally a big fan of tanks, but I certainly don't want anything that turns the game into an ONLY tank meta!


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 17:49:29


Post by: The_Real_Chris


If you start having stuff like only AA can deal with aircraft, you create a race for identical armies, for good reason. That is what happens in real life. Only AA can deal with planes, so I better take planes. Ok I don't want planes, but without them I have to take AA or I will just get shot with no return. And so on.

You see this in Epic. Every army takes at 10% of their points value in AA of some form, if you don't have any planes will have a field day with you.

And back to rocket packs hitting planes - these planes are typically only moving at 4 times the speed of the infantry on the ground (20 odd" compared to 6"), where is the problem catching them up wearing a rocket pack?


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 17:50:36


Post by: ClockworkZion


 Grey Templar wrote:
They need to go back to how vehicles used to be in terms of how you damaged them. Str vs Armor Value based on facing. Maybe you keep the wounds and melee stats of vehicles, but vehicles using Toughness has to go because otherwise we have the current model where the best weapon to kill an Imperial Knight is a bunch of lasguns.

At least back then, vehicles felt like vehicles. Maybe it was a little messy determining facing sometimes, but its better than it is now.

Definitrly not. I don't want to go back to arguements on how armour facing works on Eldar tanks nor do we need to return to a single shot popping tanks.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 17:52:11


Post by: Sledgehammer


The_Real_Chris wrote:
If you start having stuff like only AA can deal with aircraft, you create a race for identical armies, for good reason. That is what happens in real life. Only AA can deal with planes, so I better take planes. Ok I don't want planes, but without them I have to take AA or I will just get shot with no return. And so on.

You see this in Epic. Every army takes at 10% of their points value in AA of some form, if you don't have any planes will have a field day with you.

And back to rocket packs hitting planes - these planes are typically only moving at 4 times the speed of the infantry on the ground (20 odd" compared to 6"), where is the problem catching them up wearing a rocket pack?
This is what a combined arms system is. It requires you to bring tools to do a job and then figure out how to use them in the context of the battle. It gives every unit something to do, and something to fear. It creates a more balanced and dynamic list building phase where more things are viable. It creates actual armies rather than the list building meta we are currently in.

If you refuse to acknowledge a threat and build a force without AA or anti tank that's your fault. You need to take more than one tool in your tool kit.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 18:01:13


Post by: JNAProductions


 Sledgehammer wrote:
The_Real_Chris wrote:
If you start having stuff like only AA can deal with aircraft, you create a race for identical armies, for good reason. That is what happens in real life. Only AA can deal with planes, so I better take planes. Ok I don't want planes, but without them I have to take AA or I will just get shot with no return. And so on.

You see this in Epic. Every army takes at 10% of their points value in AA of some form, if you don't have any planes will have a field day with you.

And back to rocket packs hitting planes - these planes are typically only moving at 4 times the speed of the infantry on the ground (20 odd" compared to 6"), where is the problem catching them up wearing a rocket pack?
This is what a combined arms system is. It requires you to bring tools to do a job and then figure out how to use them in the context of the battle. It gives every unit something to do, and something to fear. It creates a more balanced and dynamic list building phase where more things are viable. It creates actual armies rather than the list building meta we are currently in.

If you refuse to acknowledge a threat and build a force without AA that's your fault. You need to take more than one tool in your tool kit.
What AA can my daemons take?

Nurgle daemons specifically, but honestly, what AA guns do daemons have at all?


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 18:06:19


Post by: Sledgehammer


 JNAProductions wrote:
 Sledgehammer wrote:
The_Real_Chris wrote:
If you start having stuff like only AA can deal with aircraft, you create a race for identical armies, for good reason. That is what happens in real life. Only AA can deal with planes, so I better take planes. Ok I don't want planes, but without them I have to take AA or I will just get shot with no return. And so on.

You see this in Epic. Every army takes at 10% of their points value in AA of some form, if you don't have any planes will have a field day with you.

And back to rocket packs hitting planes - these planes are typically only moving at 4 times the speed of the infantry on the ground (20 odd" compared to 6"), where is the problem catching them up wearing a rocket pack?
This is what a combined arms system is. It requires you to bring tools to do a job and then figure out how to use them in the context of the battle. It gives every unit something to do, and something to fear. It creates a more balanced and dynamic list building phase where more things are viable. It creates actual armies rather than the list building meta we are currently in.

If you refuse to acknowledge a threat and build a force without AA that's your fault. You need to take more than one tool in your tool kit.
What AA can my daemons take?

Nurgle daemons specifically, but honestly, what AA guns do daemons have at all?
Are Heldrakes, and defilers not DEAMON engines? Should GW add deamon AA? YES! Should the entire game suffer from a lack of clear and distinct combat roles with their benefits and deficiencies because of this? NO.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 18:08:06


Post by: JNAProductions


Spoiler:
 Sledgehammer wrote:
 JNAProductions wrote:
 Sledgehammer wrote:
The_Real_Chris wrote:
If you start having stuff like only AA can deal with aircraft, you create a race for identical armies, for good reason. That is what happens in real life. Only AA can deal with planes, so I better take planes. Ok I don't want planes, but without them I have to take AA or I will just get shot with no return. And so on.

You see this in Epic. Every army takes at 10% of their points value in AA of some form, if you don't have any planes will have a field day with you.

And back to rocket packs hitting planes - these planes are typically only moving at 4 times the speed of the infantry on the ground (20 odd" compared to 6"), where is the problem catching them up wearing a rocket pack?
This is what a combined arms system is. It requires you to bring tools to do a job and then figure out how to use them in the context of the battle. It gives every unit something to do, and something to fear. It creates a more balanced and dynamic list building phase where more things are viable. It creates actual armies rather than the list building meta we are currently in.

If you refuse to acknowledge a threat and build a force without AA that's your fault. You need to take more than one tool in your tool kit.
What AA can my daemons take?

Nurgle daemons specifically, but honestly, what AA guns do daemons have at all?
Are Heldrakes, and defilers not DEAMON engines? Should GW add deamon AA? YES!
Those are CSM units.

Plus, neither of them have AA guns. The Heldrake can charge flyers, to damage them, but its guns are no more AA than a Heavy Bolter or Autocannon on a CSM squad are.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 18:09:09


Post by: Sledgehammer


 JNAProductions wrote:
Spoiler:
 Sledgehammer wrote:
 JNAProductions wrote:
 Sledgehammer wrote:
The_Real_Chris wrote:
If you start having stuff like only AA can deal with aircraft, you create a race for identical armies, for good reason. That is what happens in real life. Only AA can deal with planes, so I better take planes. Ok I don't want planes, but without them I have to take AA or I will just get shot with no return. And so on.

You see this in Epic. Every army takes at 10% of their points value in AA of some form, if you don't have any planes will have a field day with you.

And back to rocket packs hitting planes - these planes are typically only moving at 4 times the speed of the infantry on the ground (20 odd" compared to 6"), where is the problem catching them up wearing a rocket pack?
This is what a combined arms system is. It requires you to bring tools to do a job and then figure out how to use them in the context of the battle. It gives every unit something to do, and something to fear. It creates a more balanced and dynamic list building phase where more things are viable. It creates actual armies rather than the list building meta we are currently in.

If you refuse to acknowledge a threat and build a force without AA that's your fault. You need to take more than one tool in your tool kit.
What AA can my daemons take?

Nurgle daemons specifically, but honestly, what AA guns do daemons have at all?
Are Heldrakes, and defilers not DEAMON engines? Should GW add deamon AA? YES!
Those are CSM units.

Plus, neither of them have AA guns. The Heldrake can charge flyers, to damage them, but its guns are no more AA than a Heavy Bolter or Autocannon on a CSM squad are.
We are talking about how the game could, and should fix these issues. I'm arguing that Deamons should indeed have these things if they do not.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 18:10:25


Post by: JNAProductions


 Sledgehammer wrote:
 JNAProductions wrote:
Spoiler:
 Sledgehammer wrote:
 JNAProductions wrote:
 Sledgehammer wrote:
The_Real_Chris wrote:
If you start having stuff like only AA can deal with aircraft, you create a race for identical armies, for good reason. That is what happens in real life. Only AA can deal with planes, so I better take planes. Ok I don't want planes, but without them I have to take AA or I will just get shot with no return. And so on.

You see this in Epic. Every army takes at 10% of their points value in AA of some form, if you don't have any planes will have a field day with you.

And back to rocket packs hitting planes - these planes are typically only moving at 4 times the speed of the infantry on the ground (20 odd" compared to 6"), where is the problem catching them up wearing a rocket pack?
This is what a combined arms system is. It requires you to bring tools to do a job and then figure out how to use them in the context of the battle. It gives every unit something to do, and something to fear. It creates a more balanced and dynamic list building phase where more things are viable. It creates actual armies rather than the list building meta we are currently in.

If you refuse to acknowledge a threat and build a force without AA that's your fault. You need to take more than one tool in your tool kit.
What AA can my daemons take?

Nurgle daemons specifically, but honestly, what AA guns do daemons have at all?
Are Heldrakes, and defilers not DEAMON engines? Should GW add deamon AA? YES!
Those are CSM units.

Plus, neither of them have AA guns. The Heldrake can charge flyers, to damage them, but its guns are no more AA than a Heavy Bolter or Autocannon on a CSM squad are.
We are talking about how the game could, and should fix these issues. I'm arguing that Deamons should indeed have these things if they do not.
Okay. Still not really an excuse to give untis from a different Dex that aren't AA units.

Do you have any ideas what kind of AA would be thematic for Daemons? It's a problem I've thought over, and haven't really found a good solution to yet.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 18:10:49


Post by: Galas


Flyers suck. Anything that does forces me to buy stuff I don't want just to engage with a stupid part of the game is a no go for me.

So I love how 9th makes Flyers an actual part of the whole game instead of their own , stupid thing bolted unto like a add-on.

I can engage with LoW with my normal weapons. I can engage with pyskers even if I don't have any just by killing them. Forcing me to have specific units to interac with a quite powerfull part of the game? No thanks.

Is absolutely fluffy to have flying infantry engagin with flyers. Of all flying infantry, the one that probably would not engage with flyers is space marines because those are jump packs not jet packs.

But a swarm of gargoyles? Swooping Hawks? Necron flying robot thingies? I mean. Ironman destroys aircraft no problem.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 18:11:32


Post by: Grey Templar


 ClockworkZion wrote:
 Grey Templar wrote:
They need to go back to how vehicles used to be in terms of how you damaged them. Str vs Armor Value based on facing. Maybe you keep the wounds and melee stats of vehicles, but vehicles using Toughness has to go because otherwise we have the current model where the best weapon to kill an Imperial Knight is a bunch of lasguns.

At least back then, vehicles felt like vehicles. Maybe it was a little messy determining facing sometimes, but its better than it is now.

Definitrly not. I don't want to go back to arguements on how armour facing works on Eldar tanks nor do we need to return to a single shot popping tanks.


Those can be fixed though. Eldar tanks should have the same armor all around, with maybe an exception for their rear. And/or GW could stop being lazy and put arc determination templates for each specific vehicle in its statblock.

Single shots popping tanks can be fixed by keeping wounds for vehicles. Penetrating Hits(>armor value) can do full damage of the weapon's wound characteristic, while glancing hits(= armor value) can always treat the wound value of the weapon as 1. So a glancing hit from a lascannon = only 1 wound, but a penetrating hit would do the full wound value.

So it would be very unlikely for a single shot to pop a tank, unless it was extremely powerful. Like a turbolaser from a titan could definitely one shot a tank, but a lascannon would most likely only severely damage it.

Will GW do this? No, because the trend is to dumb games down so nobody actually needs any skill beyond throw buckets of dice and call it good.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 18:24:49


Post by: Sledgehammer


 JNAProductions wrote:
 Sledgehammer wrote:
 JNAProductions wrote:
Spoiler:
 Sledgehammer wrote:
 JNAProductions wrote:
 Sledgehammer wrote:
The_Real_Chris wrote:
If you start having stuff like only AA can deal with aircraft, you create a race for identical armies, for good reason. That is what happens in real life. Only AA can deal with planes, so I better take planes. Ok I don't want planes, but without them I have to take AA or I will just get shot with no return. And so on.

You see this in Epic. Every army takes at 10% of their points value in AA of some form, if you don't have any planes will have a field day with you.

And back to rocket packs hitting planes - these planes are typically only moving at 4 times the speed of the infantry on the ground (20 odd" compared to 6"), where is the problem catching them up wearing a rocket pack?
This is what a combined arms system is. It requires you to bring tools to do a job and then figure out how to use them in the context of the battle. It gives every unit something to do, and something to fear. It creates a more balanced and dynamic list building phase where more things are viable. It creates actual armies rather than the list building meta we are currently in.

If you refuse to acknowledge a threat and build a force without AA that's your fault. You need to take more than one tool in your tool kit.
What AA can my daemons take?

Nurgle daemons specifically, but honestly, what AA guns do daemons have at all?
Are Heldrakes, and defilers not DEAMON engines? Should GW add deamon AA? YES!
Those are CSM units.

Plus, neither of them have AA guns. The Heldrake can charge flyers, to damage them, but its guns are no more AA than a Heavy Bolter or Autocannon on a CSM squad are.
We are talking about how the game could, and should fix these issues. I'm arguing that Deamons should indeed have these things if they do not.
Okay. Still not really an excuse to give untis from a different Dex that aren't AA units.

Do you have any ideas what kind of AA would be thematic for Daemons? It's a problem I've thought over, and haven't really found a good solution to yet.
Tzeench lightning gun / portal. Nurgle deamon that shoots giant wasp thorns out of its mouth. Korn monster with a bunch of Gatling guns. For slanessh a big monster with a giant tongue that uses it like those frogs that eat flys out of the air.

GW can easily make more deamon engines as well.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 18:44:46


Post by: ClockworkZion


 JNAProductions wrote:
 Sledgehammer wrote:
The_Real_Chris wrote:
If you start having stuff like only AA can deal with aircraft, you create a race for identical armies, for good reason. That is what happens in real life. Only AA can deal with planes, so I better take planes. Ok I don't want planes, but without them I have to take AA or I will just get shot with no return. And so on.

You see this in Epic. Every army takes at 10% of their points value in AA of some form, if you don't have any planes will have a field day with you.

And back to rocket packs hitting planes - these planes are typically only moving at 4 times the speed of the infantry on the ground (20 odd" compared to 6"), where is the problem catching them up wearing a rocket pack?
This is what a combined arms system is. It requires you to bring tools to do a job and then figure out how to use them in the context of the battle. It gives every unit something to do, and something to fear. It creates a more balanced and dynamic list building phase where more things are viable. It creates actual armies rather than the list building meta we are currently in.

If you refuse to acknowledge a threat and build a force without AA that's your fault. You need to take more than one tool in your tool kit.
What AA can my daemons take?

Nurgle daemons specifically, but honestly, what AA guns do daemons have at all?

Thoughts and prayers?


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 18:45:46


Post by: Abaddon303


Why over complicate it? Just give all vehicles an extra 25% wounds.
Multimelta doubled in shots
Marines doubled in wounds

It's no wonder vehicles don't feel durable. A rhino is about as durable as a 5 man Tac squad. I'd rather take another 4 Plague Marines as ablative wounds than use a rhino to keep them safe as it's by far more efficient.

Increase the wounds by 25%, it'll mitigate slightly the increased number of antitank weapons flying around, it'll reduce the threat of these mythical small arms and flamers that people seem to be obsessed with are 'plinking' 11 wounds off a predator.

If they still don't feel right, add another wound and keep doing that until you just start seeing vehicles on the table again. Not a lot, just one or two here and there, and then it's fixed.

Crazy complex antitank rules just seem inelegant to me...


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 18:55:14


Post by: Galas


Abaddon303 wrote:
Why over complicate it? Just give all vehicles an extra 25% wounds.
Multimelta doubled in shots
Marines doubled in wounds

It's no wonder vehicles don't feel durable. A rhino is about as durable as a 5 man Tac squad. I'd rather take another 4 Plague Marines as ablative wounds than use a rhino to keep them safe as it's by far more efficient.

Increase the wounds by 25%, it'll mitigate slightly the increased number of antitank weapons flying around, it'll reduce the threat of these mythical small arms and flamers that people seem to be obsessed with are 'plinking' 11 wounds off a predator.

If they still don't feel right, add another wound and keep doing that until you just start seeing vehicles on the table again. Not a lot, just one or two here and there, and then it's fixed.

Crazy complex antitank rules just seem inelegant to me...


Thats what I cannot understand.

People keep complaining about rules bloat, complex rules... you have wounds. Just use them! Is like the most obvious choice.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 19:05:26


Post by: Sledgehammer


 Galas wrote:
Abaddon303 wrote:
Why over complicate it? Just give all vehicles an extra 25% wounds.
Multimelta doubled in shots
Marines doubled in wounds

It's no wonder vehicles don't feel durable. A rhino is about as durable as a 5 man Tac squad. I'd rather take another 4 Plague Marines as ablative wounds than use a rhino to keep them safe as it's by far more efficient.

Increase the wounds by 25%, it'll mitigate slightly the increased number of antitank weapons flying around, it'll reduce the threat of these mythical small arms and flamers that people seem to be obsessed with are 'plinking' 11 wounds off a predator.

If they still don't feel right, add another wound and keep doing that until you just start seeing vehicles on the table again. Not a lot, just one or two here and there, and then it's fixed.

Crazy complex antitank rules just seem inelegant to me...


Thats what I cannot understand.

People keep complaining about rules bloat, complex rules... you have wounds. Just use them! Is like the most obvious choice.
Because typically people who like the fantasy of a tank don't like the idea of small arms being able to damage a tank. It's a fundamentally flawed interaction in those eyes.

It's the same as a guy on a jetpack flying 100mph effectively attacking an aircraft going over 700mph with a sword.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 19:06:29


Post by: ClockworkZion


Wounds and damage reduction combined would be the sweet spot just to keep the dmg 2 spam down and make people invest in weapons actually designed to kill large targets.

I only say this because people favor weight of dice to do more consistent damage, and more wounds would see an uptick in those weapons if not off set somehow.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 19:24:14


Post by: Galas


 Sledgehammer wrote:
 Galas wrote:
Abaddon303 wrote:
Why over complicate it? Just give all vehicles an extra 25% wounds.
Multimelta doubled in shots
Marines doubled in wounds

It's no wonder vehicles don't feel durable. A rhino is about as durable as a 5 man Tac squad. I'd rather take another 4 Plague Marines as ablative wounds than use a rhino to keep them safe as it's by far more efficient.

Increase the wounds by 25%, it'll mitigate slightly the increased number of antitank weapons flying around, it'll reduce the threat of these mythical small arms and flamers that people seem to be obsessed with are 'plinking' 11 wounds off a predator.

If they still don't feel right, add another wound and keep doing that until you just start seeing vehicles on the table again. Not a lot, just one or two here and there, and then it's fixed.

Crazy complex antitank rules just seem inelegant to me...


Thats what I cannot understand.

People keep complaining about rules bloat, complex rules... you have wounds. Just use them! Is like the most obvious choice.
Because typically people who like the fantasy of a tank don't like the idea of small arms being able to damage a tank. It's a fundamentally flawed interaction in those eyes.

It the same as a guy on a jetpack flying 100mph effectively attacking an aircraft going over 700 with a sword.


More toughtness, invul saves, -1 damage , etc... don't change the fact that a gretchin can remove a wound of a tank with a couple of 6's.

But is different when that wound is 1 of 15 or 20 than 1 of 10.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 19:29:40


Post by: Abaddon303


But vehicles aren't getting plinked away at by 1 or 2w weapons. They're getting smashed in by copious amounts of dark lances and multimeltas and cognis lascannons.
If you want to blow up my land raider with the same firepower that would have killed 20 plague marines then go right ahead


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 19:55:59


Post by: Sledgehammer


Abaddon303 wrote:
But vehicles aren't getting plinked away at by 1 or 2w weapons. They're getting smashed in by copious amounts of dark lances and multimeltas and cognis lascannons.
If you want to blow up my land raider with the same firepower that would have killed 20 plague marines then go right ahead
If we're apply bandaids, then increasing the point values on those weapons.

If we're talking about fundamentally changing the game for the better it's increasing the play size back to 6x4 minimum (40k really should be played on an even larger board IMO, but that's not realistic for many people), changing deep strike so that it's actually a risk, and implementing a harsher force org that puts more limitations on specialist weaponry. People can just spam stuff far too easily. However I do think these anti tank weaponry are performing their job correctly. I mean, a vehicle could blow up in one hit in 7th. (Which was both good and bad, but that's another discussion entirely)


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 20:08:36


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Do AA for Daemons in a fun and fluffy way:

"Aircraft navigation and even the laws of physics that let it fly can warp in the presence of these otherworldly creatures. The sky turns shades of unnatural colours; unseen forces swat and buffet the aircraft; instrumentation goes haywire; both pilot and machine spirit scream helplessly in rage or fear as their craft enter a space that was Never Meant To Be.

Any aircraft unit that starts or ends its move within 12" of one or more Daemon units rolls a D6, on an X, take X mortal wounds" (whatever is balanced).


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 20:09:17


Post by: Gadzilla666


 Sledgehammer wrote:
Abaddon303 wrote:
But vehicles aren't getting plinked away at by 1 or 2w weapons. They're getting smashed in by copious amounts of dark lances and multimeltas and cognis lascannons.
If you want to blow up my land raider with the same firepower that would have killed 20 plague marines then go right ahead
If we're apply bandaids, then increasing the point values on those weapons.

If we're talking about fundamentally changing the game for the better it's increasing the play size back to 6x4 minimum (40k really should be played on an even larger board IMO, but that's not realistic for many people), changing deep strike so that it's actually a risk, and implementing a harsher force org that puts more limitations on specialist weaponry. People can just spam stuff far too easily. However I do think these anti tank weaponry are performing their job correctly. I mean, a vehicle could blow up in one hit in 7th. (Which was both good and bad, but that's another discussion entirely)

We're talking about making tanks function better in the current edition, 9th, not rewriting 7th. Which means being realistic. Gw isn't going back to those things, or AV, or facings. They also aren't going to slap 25% more wounds on tanks or +1 toughness. People need to be realistic here.

They MIGHT actually raise the price on the overly efficient AT weapons and units that are making many tanks unviable. They also might change a few of the core rules that give AT toting infantry nothing but advantages against vehicles.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 20:27:34


Post by: Sledgehammer


 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 Sledgehammer wrote:
Abaddon303 wrote:
But vehicles aren't getting plinked away at by 1 or 2w weapons. They're getting smashed in by copious amounts of dark lances and multimeltas and cognis lascannons.
If you want to blow up my land raider with the same firepower that would have killed 20 plague marines then go right ahead
If we're apply bandaids, then increasing the point values on those weapons.

If we're talking about fundamentally changing the game for the better it's increasing the play size back to 6x4 minimum (40k really should be played on an even larger board IMO, but that's not realistic for many people), changing deep strike so that it's actually a risk, and implementing a harsher force org that puts more limitations on specialist weaponry. People can just spam stuff far too easily. However I do think these anti tank weaponry are performing their job correctly. I mean, a vehicle could blow up in one hit in 7th. (Which was both good and bad, but that's another discussion entirely)

We're talking about making tanks function better in the current edition, 9th, not rewriting 7th. Which means being realistic. Gw isn't going back to those things, or AV, or facings. They also aren't going to slap 25% more wounds on tanks or +1 toughness. People need to be realistic here.

They MIGHT actually raise the price on the overly efficient AT weapons and units that are making many tanks unviable. They also might change a few of the core rules that give AT toting infantry nothing but advantages against vehicles.
I do think the delivery systems of at toting infantry is a large component. The range of a melta gun just isn't as important in an edition where you can get that guaranteed deep strike, but those are all in the codexes. They'd have to change every single one of those rules on each units profile sheet, and that ain't happening. The best they can really do is just increase the points cost.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 20:32:45


Post by: Gadzilla666


 Sledgehammer wrote:
Spoiler:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 Sledgehammer wrote:
Abaddon303 wrote:
But vehicles aren't getting plinked away at by 1 or 2w weapons. They're getting smashed in by copious amounts of dark lances and multimeltas and cognis lascannons.
If you want to blow up my land raider with the same firepower that would have killed 20 plague marines then go right ahead
If we're apply bandaids, then increasing the point values on those weapons.

If we're talking about fundamentally changing the game for the better it's increasing the play size back to 6x4 minimum (40k really should be played on an even larger board IMO, but that's not realistic for many people), changing deep strike so that it's actually a risk, and implementing a harsher force org that puts more limitations on specialist weaponry. People can just spam stuff far too easily. However I do think these anti tank weaponry are performing their job correctly. I mean, a vehicle could blow up in one hit in 7th. (Which was both good and bad, but that's another discussion entirely)

We're talking about making tanks function better in the current edition, 9th, not rewriting 7th. Which means being realistic. Gw isn't going back to those things, or AV, or facings. They also aren't going to slap 25% more wounds on tanks or +1 toughness. People need to be realistic here.

They MIGHT actually raise the price on the overly efficient AT weapons and units that are making many tanks unviable. They also might change a few of the core rules that give AT toting infantry nothing but advantages against vehicles.


I do think the delivery systems of at toting infantry is a large component. The range of a melta gun just isn't as important in an edition where you can get that guaranteed deep strike, but those are all in the codexes. They'd have to change every single one of those rules on each units profile sheet, and that ain't happening. The best they can really do is just increase the points cost.

Yes, that's realistic. But deep strike has little to do with it, as the overperforming AT units don't have it.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 20:48:16


Post by: ClockworkZion


Abaddon303 wrote:
But vehicles aren't getting plinked away at by 1 or 2w weapons. They're getting smashed in by copious amounts of dark lances and multimeltas and cognis lascannons.
If you want to blow up my land raider with the same firepower that would have killed 20 plague marines then go right ahead

In 8th we were losing them to D2 weapona. Only in 9th has it shifted thanks to anti-tank weapons being better at their job. Doesn't stop the D2 weapons from being cheaper and easier to spam though.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 21:08:52


Post by: jeff white


 Sledgehammer wrote:
Spoiler:
 Galas wrote:
Abaddon303 wrote:
Why over complicate it? Just give all vehicles an extra 25% wounds.
Multimelta doubled in shots
Marines doubled in wounds

It's no wonder vehicles don't feel durable. A rhino is about as durable as a 5 man Tac squad. I'd rather take another 4 Plague Marines as ablative wounds than use a rhino to keep them safe as it's by far more efficient.

Increase the wounds by 25%, it'll mitigate slightly the increased number of antitank weapons flying around, it'll reduce the threat of these mythical small arms and flamers that people seem to be obsessed with are 'plinking' 11 wounds off a predator.

If they still don't feel right, add another wound and keep doing that until you just start seeing vehicles on the table again. Not a lot, just one or two here and there, and then it's fixed.

Crazy complex antitank rules just seem inelegant to me...


Thats what I cannot understand.

People keep complaining about rules bloat, complex rules... you have wounds. Just use them! Is like the most obvious choice.
Because typically people who like the fantasy of a tank don't like the idea of small arms being able to damage a tank. It's a fundamentally flawed interaction in those eyes.

It's the same as a guy on a jetpack flying 100mph effectively attacking an aircraft going over 700mph with a sword.

Yup. Exalt button gettin the beat down again.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 21:19:23


Post by: ClockworkZion


Thinking of narratives: psykers should be able to target aircraft since they can just a rip a hole in reality, reach through and slap the pilot.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 21:29:23


Post by: Arachnofiend


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Do AA for Daemons in a fun and fluffy way:

"Aircraft navigation and even the laws of physics that let it fly can warp in the presence of these otherworldly creatures. The sky turns shades of unnatural colours; unseen forces swat and buffet the aircraft; instrumentation goes haywire; both pilot and machine spirit scream helplessly in rage or fear as their craft enter a space that was Never Meant To Be.

Any aircraft unit that starts or ends its move within 12" of one or more Daemon units rolls a D6, on an X, take X mortal wounds" (whatever is balanced).

Congratulations you've made a solution that literally only works on Heldrakes

The best solution for daemon anti-air is a daemon prince dragging that melon-fether to the ground. What you've suggested is bloat.

...Wait yeah speaking of heldrakes literally the entire point of that model is to be a big monstrous creature that latches onto planes and drags them to the ground


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 21:34:17


Post by: Sledgehammer


 ClockworkZion wrote:
Thinking of narratives: psykers should be able to target aircraft since they can just a rip a hole in reality, reach through and slap the pilot.
If psykers could interact with vehicles in cool ways I'd be all down for that.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 21:59:02


Post by: ZergSmasher


 ClockworkZion wrote:
Thinking of narratives: psykers should be able to target aircraft since they can just a rip a hole in reality, reach through and slap the pilot.

I laughed way too hard at this! Have yourself a goddamned exalt!


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/11 23:40:50


Post by: kurhanik


JNAProductions wrote:
 Sledgehammer wrote:
 Tyran wrote:
Except that no everyone utilizes combined arms tactics in 40k. e.g Daemons, and to a lesser extent Custodes.

I think the new Godblight novel even highlights the fact that Daemons use medieval era tactics and formations against tanks, and they somehow work.
If we're going to start advocating for rules on the tabletop to make entirely melee armies capable of killing anything and everything including fliers and tanks, viable, then I have no interest in 40k. Just move your units across the table top and try to stay behind cover, roll your charge dice and win.

No need to think about how to get your anti tank units into position, just charge! No need to figure out how to get your infantry unit to get a flank on the enemy. Just move them up and charge! Just deep strike, use my stratagems, and army bonuses to get a charge!

The idea of combined arms is to prevent people from bringing solo lists and creates a more dynamic play experience.
One of two things can happen, then:

1) Suck it up and realize that, at least starting with 8th if not sooner, melee armies are harder to use than shooting armies.
2) Give Daemons a lot more options.


Ideally option 2? I'd love to see some techno-daemons, either regular daemons with guns, daemons fused with technology, or some mixture of the two. I'm picturing like a Charnel Hound from some of the older D&D editions, with a giant cannon either mounted on or sunk into its body, with the hundreds of corpses making up its body climbing over each other to fire the gun. Blood letters marching forwards with hell-forged rifles, bayonets fixed, maybe some Daemonettes have, instead of 2 claw hands, 1 claw hand, while the other is some warp powered cannon. So many options, yet GW just feels the need to keep Daemons mostly melee and medieval.

Abaddon303 wrote:Why over complicate it? Just give all vehicles an extra 25% wounds.
Multimelta doubled in shots
Marines doubled in wounds

It's no wonder vehicles don't feel durable. A rhino is about as durable as a 5 man Tac squad. I'd rather take another 4 Plague Marines as ablative wounds than use a rhino to keep them safe as it's by far more efficient.

Increase the wounds by 25%, it'll mitigate slightly the increased number of antitank weapons flying around, it'll reduce the threat of these mythical small arms and flamers that people seem to be obsessed with are 'plinking' 11 wounds off a predator.

If they still don't feel right, add another wound and keep doing that until you just start seeing vehicles on the table again. Not a lot, just one or two here and there, and then it's fixed.

Crazy complex antitank rules just seem inelegant to me...


Yeah, considering we are a full year into 9th at this point, this is the best current option. Add wounds to vehicles and maybe allow for better saves on main battle tanks since most vehicles now have a 3+ save. Ideally throw in an errata/faq for already released codices giving out the boost too.

In the future I'd like to see the Toughness, Strength, Wounds and Saves stats actually put to use. Make the lightest paper thin tanks in the game T10, something like the Leman Russ T16, a Baneblade T18, and in between. Allow for a wider spectrum of saving throws, give things more wounds, and above all else, boost anti tank to match (or else we'd end up in the exact reverse problem of what we have now).


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/12 00:26:01


Post by: the_scotsman


 Sledgehammer wrote:
The_Real_Chris wrote:
 Sledgehammer wrote:
And you think making aircraft suceptible to being destroyed by any boy who happens to be wearing a jetpack is a positive play experience? Stormboys should not be a viable anti air option, just as a lasgun shouldn't be able to be an anti tank Weapon. Ohh but Mkoll turned his lagun into a krak grenade!!!! Yeah no thanks.


For one they aren't proper fliers. A supersonic aircraft would be a blip on the game board for a few seconds as it passed overhead. You want aircraft travelling around the board? Ok those are skimmers. The idea of jump packs reaching them isn't too far fetched. I will take your ideas of what can affect fliers if you accept my flak ranges and the amount of time you are a threat over the table.

If you want 'realistic' armour, aircraft and infantry (heavy and light), you would need to play a different game. And even then the results wouldn't be what you think they would be. If you haven't seen a tank rout because the crew got scared, you wouldn't accept the idea that infantry with weapons of a minimal threat to tanks could make them run.

I prefer the old lower damage, lower defence, lower model count approach. GW wants high model counts for sale so that means high damage dealing to finish games, which means more defence for many units.
I'm not asking for proper ranges, nor am I asking for a simulationist game. I'm asking for aircraft and vehicles to at least feel lile aircraft and tanks.

People are in here literally advocating for boys to able to assault flying vehicles, and for flame throwers to shoot down aircraft. These fundamentally change the way that aircraft are operated and used on the table in a negative way. The fact that aircraft have to worry about where they are on the table in association with those two units AT ALL is antithetical to aircraft behaving as aircraft. Bring your own aircraft, or bring anti aircraft if you want to fight against flyers. Don't come to me and tell me an assault unit should be swatting aircraft out of the sky.

I'd much prefer they bring back 7th edition aircraft, keep the current wound system and cap the negative modifiers to -2.



Aircraft didnt feel like aircraft in 7th edition, either.

In my ideal world, aircraft would be required to come on from reserves, and you'd have to make a roll for them to come on. Actually, hold on. I declare this the Proposed Rules section temporarily right now

Aircraft

Models with the AIRCRAFT keyword must be deployed in Strategic Reserves. During the controlling player's command phase, including during the first turn, the controlling player rolls a D6 for each aircraft model in their army in reserve, and may re-roll that die by expending 1 command point if their army's warlord has not been destroyed.

If the result on the die is a 4+, set up the aircraft model with its base touching any battlefield edge.

Aircraft models must move in a straight line in the movement phase at least up to their minimum movement stat. Aircraft that have the Hover rule must declare that they are Hovering after moving. Aircraft remain on the board until the end of the opposing player's next turn, when any surviving aircraft are removed from the board, placed back in Strategic Reserves, and rolled for again at the beginning of the controlling player's command phase.

Change: The Hard to Hit rule is changed to "If this model is not Hovering, it is hit by shooting attacks only on a natural roll of a 6 if the firing model does not also have the AIRCRAFT keyword. Additionally any melee attacks targeting this model suffer -1 to hit and -1 to wound."

Change: Divide the Wounds stat of any AIRCRAFT model in half, rounding down.

Change: Any weapon that ordinarily gains a bonus to hit against AIRCRAFT models instead makes attacks against AIRCRAFT models at its normal Ballistic Skill.

Change: Do not roll to see if any aircraft model Explodes when it is destroyed. Instead, whenever an AIRCRAFT model that is Hovering is destroyed, it automatically explodes. Any AIRCRAFT model that is not hovering is destroyed, it moves directly forward 2d6" in a straight line, and then Explodes.

All other rules relating to AIRCRAFT keyword models remain in effect.

^there. Aircraft are now the unreliable "Cavalry that comes over the hill" that are largely immune to regular fire due to their extremely high speed, but are susceptible to being destroyed by a lucky shot or a hit from a dedicated AA weapon. In exchange, compared to a tank armed with the same weapons an Aircraft is a risky investment, as you dont know when you will be without its weapons on the board for a turn.

...Also I agree that Rule of Cool for flying models should be allowed to stay in place and jump packs and the like should get to fight flyers in melee, but they need to be nerfed somewhat due to the halving of the wounds stat.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/12 01:27:14


Post by: Sledgehammer


 the_scotsman wrote:
 Sledgehammer wrote:
The_Real_Chris wrote:
 Sledgehammer wrote:
And you think making aircraft suceptible to being destroyed by any boy who happens to be wearing a jetpack is a positive play experience? Stormboys should not be a viable anti air option, just as a lasgun shouldn't be able to be an anti tank Weapon. Ohh but Mkoll turned his lagun into a krak grenade!!!! Yeah no thanks.


For one they aren't proper fliers. A supersonic aircraft would be a blip on the game board for a few seconds as it passed overhead. You want aircraft travelling around the board? Ok those are skimmers. The idea of jump packs reaching them isn't too far fetched. I will take your ideas of what can affect fliers if you accept my flak ranges and the amount of time you are a threat over the table.

If you want 'realistic' armour, aircraft and infantry (heavy and light), you would need to play a different game. And even then the results wouldn't be what you think they would be. If you haven't seen a tank rout because the crew got scared, you wouldn't accept the idea that infantry with weapons of a minimal threat to tanks could make them run.

I prefer the old lower damage, lower defence, lower model count approach. GW wants high model counts for sale so that means high damage dealing to finish games, which means more defence for many units.
I'm not asking for proper ranges, nor am I asking for a simulationist game. I'm asking for aircraft and vehicles to at least feel lile aircraft and tanks.

People are in here literally advocating for boys to able to assault flying vehicles, and for flame throwers to shoot down aircraft. These fundamentally change the way that aircraft are operated and used on the table in a negative way. The fact that aircraft have to worry about where they are on the table in association with those two units AT ALL is antithetical to aircraft behaving as aircraft. Bring your own aircraft, or bring anti aircraft if you want to fight against flyers. Don't come to me and tell me an assault unit should be swatting aircraft out of the sky.

I'd much prefer they bring back 7th edition aircraft, keep the current wound system and cap the negative modifiers to -2.



Aircraft didnt feel like aircraft in 7th edition, either.

In my ideal world, aircraft would be required to come on from reserves, and you'd have to make a roll for them to come on. Actually, hold on. I declare this the Proposed Rules section temporarily right now

Aircraft

Models with the AIRCRAFT keyword must be deployed in Strategic Reserves. During the controlling player's command phase, including during the first turn, the controlling player rolls a D6 for each aircraft model in their army in reserve, and may re-roll that die by expending 1 command point if their army's warlord has not been destroyed.

If the result on the die is a 4+, set up the aircraft model with its base touching any battlefield edge.

Aircraft models must move in a straight line in the movement phase at least up to their minimum movement stat. Aircraft that have the Hover rule must declare that they are Hovering after moving. Aircraft remain on the board until the end of the opposing player's next turn, when any surviving aircraft are removed from the board, placed back in Strategic Reserves, and rolled for again at the beginning of the controlling player's command phase.

Change: The Hard to Hit rule is changed to "If this model is not Hovering, it is hit by shooting attacks only on a natural roll of a 6 if the firing model does not also have the AIRCRAFT keyword. Additionally any melee attacks targeting this model suffer -1 to hit and -1 to wound."

Change: Divide the Wounds stat of any AIRCRAFT model in half, rounding down.

Change: Any weapon that ordinarily gains a bonus to hit against AIRCRAFT models instead makes attacks against AIRCRAFT models at its normal Ballistic Skill.

Change: Do not roll to see if any aircraft model Explodes when it is destroyed. Instead, whenever an AIRCRAFT model that is Hovering is destroyed, it automatically explodes. Any AIRCRAFT model that is not hovering is destroyed, it moves directly forward 2d6" in a straight line, and then Explodes.

All other rules relating to AIRCRAFT keyword models remain in effect.

^there. Aircraft are now the unreliable "Cavalry that comes over the hill" that are largely immune to regular fire due to their extremely high speed, but are susceptible to being destroyed by a lucky shot or a hit from a dedicated AA weapon. In exchange, compared to a tank armed with the same weapons an Aircraft is a risky investment, as you dont know when you will be without its weapons on the board for a turn.

...Also I agree that Rule of Cool for flying models should be allowed to stay in place and jump packs and the like should get to fight flyers in melee, but they need to be nerfed somewhat due to the halving of the wounds stat.
This is basically 7ths aircraft rules, but you've just halved the wounds of aircraft as they are now, made them susceptible to jump infantry and having them roll on the reserve table every turn instead of just once.

The entirely ridiculous nature of jump infantry assaulting aircraft going mach 1+ with a sword, and the accompanying negative play experiences that has on the game aside, you've made aircraft more vulnerable and less likely to even participate in the game whilst reducing its chances of being hit with no increase in firepower. If you're going to make it a 50% chance that it can even be on the board, you'd probably have to reduce the points by 50% as well. Vehicles also don't have armor values anymore either. A bunch of small arms fire could easily bring down any vehicle in the game that has 6 or 7 wounds, which again goes back to the tank / vehicle issue in general.

Implementing a system that leaves it up to chance whether or not you can even use your units is simply bad game design. I could go a whole game and not roll a 4+ on my aircraft coming in. So now I pay a command point tax to even use my units. At least in epic armageddon when you roll for strategic value it's a 2+ ,rerollable with supreme commander, and increases the strategic roll required with damage taken.

And this all goes with the fact that aircraft now sit in the middle of the board politely waiting for your opponents turn to end to then leave the airspace. I do not believe a system like that would work in anything but an alternate activation game where you can bait out potential threats first.


I would much rather have 7ths aircraft any day over this. Now if you made vehicles resistant to small arms (-1 damage on all weapons like has been suggested), and made it so that jump infantry can only hit on 6s, and so that the reserve rolls worked like 7th where it starts out at 4+ and then gets easier every turn I'd be ok with it.






How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/12 01:43:58


Post by: bullyboy


Just wondering why there is so much talk of aircraft in a tank thread?


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/12 01:45:51


Post by: Jidmah


Because the people that don't even play 9th are derailing the thread, just like they do with every general topic connected to 9th edition recently.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/12 01:50:06


Post by: bullyboy


 Jidmah wrote:
Because the people that don't even play 9th are derailing the thread, just like they do with every general topic connected to 9th edition recently.


In all honesty, fliers certainly deserve their own thread....I just don't think the talk belongs in this one.

Sledehammer...you seem to be the driving force behind this derailment (but I'm interested in a discussion on fliers), care to make a separate thread?


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/12 04:40:36


Post by: AnomanderRake


 Jidmah wrote:
Because the people that don't even play 9th are derailing the thread, just like they do with every general topic connected to 9th edition recently.


Obviously we're not allowed to have an opinion on anything if the opinion isn't "EVERYTHING'S FINE HERE MOVE ALONG SOMETHING SOMETHING TOURNAMENT WINRATES."


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/12 05:02:31


Post by: ClockworkZion


Getting back to the tanks, and trying to keep this from being too derailed, I think we can all agree while we want them to be better the rules can't get too clunky which is why I'm in favor of the wounds buff paired with the -1 dmg to shooting attacks approach (as well as a small points bump on all anti-tank/monster weapons).

It encourages you to protect your tanks much like real tanks need to be protected from people getting to close, while ensuring the extra wounds don't just see an uptick in massed mid-damage weapons to counter them. I'd even argue for the same changes to monstrous creatures as they share many of the same issues against shooting.

To add to this, vehicles and monsters need a better impact hit ability. Say when they successfully charge roll a d6 for every wound they have remaining and it does mortals on a 5+ to anything that isn't vehicle or monster or titanic. Let's put the mass of the vehicle to better use than spinning in place to do melee attacks.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/12 05:44:51


Post by: Gadzilla666


 ClockworkZion wrote:
Getting back to the tanks, and trying to keep this from being too derailed, I think we can all agree while we want them to be better the rules can't get too clunky which is why I'm in favor of the wounds buff paired with the -1 dmg to shooting attacks approach (as well as a small points bump on all anti-tank/monster weapons).

It encourages you to protect your tanks much like real tanks need to be protected from people getting to close, while ensuring the extra wounds don't just see an uptick in massed mid-damage weapons to counter them. I'd even argue for the same changes to monstrous creatures as they share many of the same issues against shooting.

To add to this, vehicles and monsters need a better impact hit ability. Say when they successfully charge roll a d6 for every wound they have remaining and it does mortals on a 5+ to anything that isn't vehicle or monster or titanic. Let's put the mass of the vehicle to better use than spinning in place to do melee attacks.

Agreed on the points bumps for AT weapons. But I don't think we'll see a rollout of the -1 damage mechanic for all vehicles, as it's a special rule, just like invulnerable saves, and they won't be giving it to everything. Likewise, I don't see gw giving a blanket increase of wounds either. It would require reworking the wound brackets for everything affected, as well as adjusting any rules that affect models with "X" number of wounds, and probably redefining what qualifies as TITANIC, as that seems to be capped at 20 wounds. I COULD see strategems that mimic the old Tank Shock rule though, which is what you seem to be describing.

I still think our best bets are the price increases to AT weapons and platforms as well as changing how the cap on negative modifiers to hit works so that AT infantry units are fully penalized for moving to get the best shot.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/12 05:58:35


Post by: ClockworkZion


I don't think a blanket -1 would work but a -1 againd shooting damage specifically would open up a nice design space for vehicles.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/12 06:20:21


Post by: Gadzilla666


 ClockworkZion wrote:
I don't think a blanket -1 would work but a -1 againd shooting damage specifically would open up a nice design space for vehicles.

I agree. I just don't think gw will do that. Not for all vehicles. At least not in this edition.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/12 06:46:13


Post by: warmaster21


What if for vehicles and monsters with a bracket system had a smiliar system to the no more than X wounds per phase.

(forgive me as I butcher the language as I'm brain dead and cant think of the terminology atm)

something like,
Impervious: After an attack has resolved that inflicted damage to this unit. if this unit has dropped a tier in its bracket it can suffer no further wounds this phase.

you wont be able to 1 punch the heavy vehicles anymore but you can still severely damage it (with the bracketing)

Could come with a downside like
Shaken: If Impervious was triggered during your opponents last turn, this unit suffers a -1 to hit penallty with all attacks this turn.

with something like impervious massed 1d weapons would drop you to only 1w below your bracket, where a heavy D attack could still chunk you as long as it was the attack to drop you below.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/12 09:38:31


Post by: Jidmah


 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
Because the people that don't even play 9th are derailing the thread, just like they do with every general topic connected to 9th edition recently.


Obviously we're not allowed to have an opinion on anything if the opinion isn't "EVERYTHING'S FINE HERE MOVE ALONG SOMETHING SOMETHING TOURNAMENT WINRATES."


You're allowed to have an opinion and you and your like-minded companions have made sufficiently clear among the hundreds of posts you have graced us with across dozens of threads in the past few months.

It's just that this beautiful opinion is utterly worthless to anyone actually playing 9th, so I'd love if you create one thread where you can continue your "9th is the worst thing ev0r, we need to go back!" echo chamber and stay there so your noise stops choking every productive discussion about 9th to death.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/12 10:49:37


Post by: Matt Swain


 bullyboy wrote:
For one thing, this isn't old 40K where one or two tanks were on the table. Now, GW wants you to have multiple tanks on the table (more money), so only being able to kill 1 a turn would make people spam vehicles more (the points are certainly there) and so we would be having the opposite discussion here.

Honestly, I don't think we need to change much, the meta will probably do it all for us. Sure, right now, lots of melta and dark lances. But after orks get released, I have a feeling some weapon options for players will need to change. We were all talking about how 8th was a horde meta and that early 9th was all about elite tough units (no blast effects, etc). Well, a MM/DL is just as good plinking a 4W elite as a tank and is still a solid trade off for points efficiency. Now use it vs 30+ T5 orks.

let's come back to this discussion in a few months (after sisters, admech and orks are on the table) and see if we are still in the same place.

As for fliers, I'm trying to figure out why they are considered so poor this edition? Outside of -2 to hit (which not all fliers could get, only a minority), not much has changed really.


If this is the problem, there's a simple fix:

Just don't buy gw tank models.

I've seen plenty of cardboard rhinos and even predators. And the people gaming with them were having as much fun as anyone who spent 300$ on gw official models. I've seen a foamrcore land raider with bits side mounts on them. As long as its not 'modeled for advantage and at least recognizably the same size and shape, people are ok with it, except the GW white knights, and frankly feth them.




How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/12 11:06:34


Post by: Karol


Doable if you play at home. Not doable, if most games are played at stores. That is why resin is so popular. Once undercoated, there is little ways to tell if a Contemptor or Siccarian is FW or not, besides maybe the non FW ones having better detail.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/12 11:38:41


Post by: dadx6


 ClockworkZion wrote:
I'm in favor of the wounds buff paired with the -1 dmg to shooting attacks approach (as well as a small points bump on all anti-tank/monster weapons).

It encourages you to protect your tanks much like real tanks need to be protected from people getting to close, while ensuring the extra wounds don't just see an uptick in massed mid-damage weapons to counter them. I'd even argue for the same changes to monstrous creatures as they share many of the same issues against shooting.


I agree with this proposal - I think it could even be tailored to Toughness. Say, anything with the "VEHICLE" Keyword takes -1 damage to a minimum of 0 when wounded by a shooting attack that has a S of less than T-1. A Land Raider wouldn't take damage from assault cannons, a Devilfish would only take 1 damage per hit from Heavy Bolters, but Land speeders and Ork Trukks would still be vulnerable to massed Heavy Bolter fire, and autocannons would be able to apply all of their damage potential to any vehicle. But bolters and lasguns and pulse rifles would no longer be whittling down Imperial Knights.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/12 11:39:02


Post by: Jidmah


 Matt Swain wrote:

If this is the problem, there's a simple fix:

Just don't buy gw tank models.

I've seen plenty of cardboard rhinos and even predators. And the people gaming with them were having as much fun as anyone who spent 300$ on gw official models. I've seen a foamrcore land raider with bits side mounts on them. As long as its not 'modeled for advantage and at least recognizably the same size and shape, people are ok with it, except the GW white knights, and frankly feth them.


Unnecessary. Predators, rhinos and land raiders are by far the easiest models to get on ebay. For my DG I just bought a bunch Ultramarine ones for 10€ per model, scratched them up, replaced all imperial insignias with nurgle symbols from a 3D printer and added nurglings. Done.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/12 11:49:26


Post by: bullyboy


One thing that is painfully obvious (as Gadzilla pointed out) is that GW will not do a sweeping change to the fundamental stats in this edition. So if that just leaves us with points increases for the worst offenders, what should we be looking at?

Darklance (future brightlance) -
Cognis lascannon -
Multimelta -

The thing is, because GW has included the weapon points in each unit entry (this is actually an excellent choice btw), you really only need to adjust the worst offenders. For example, are Devastator MMs really an issue? New Retributors? Probably not (yeah, I got my eye on you Argent Shroud!), but a mobile MM on an attack bike or ATV could get a small points boost. Maybe also not put up the weapon costs on certain tanks since they are already expensive.

Darklance on Raiders is built in, but maybe it should be +10-15pts. I don't see the need to increase the cost of a dark lance on a kabalite warrior (already +15pts).

I know absolutely zero about admech so not sure where the cognis las is abusive.

In truth, I tink this is the only real option moving forward, if it continues to be a problem. The incentive has to be for fewer AT weapons of this magnitude on the table, rather than trying to find a suitable way to improve the defences of the target for these weapons.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/12 11:53:19


Post by: ClockworkZion


 bullyboy wrote:
One thing that is painfully obvious (as Gadzilla pointed out) is that GW will not do a sweeping change to the fundamental stats in this edition. So if that just leaves us with points increases for the worst offenders, what should we be looking at?

I disagree with the premise that it's impossible to see sweeping changes to vehicles when 8th introduced sweeping changes to Marines. Trick is that we just need to convince GW that we need to fix vehicles to fix Marines.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/12 12:11:53


Post by: Jidmah


 bullyboy wrote:
One thing that is painfully obvious (as Gadzilla pointed out) is that GW will not do a sweeping change to the fundamental stats in this edition. So if that just leaves us with points increases for the worst offenders, what should we be looking at?


Doing a sweeping update to the wounds characteristics of vehicles should be within GW's possibilities.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/12 12:19:21


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 bullyboy wrote:
One thing that is painfully obvious (as Gadzilla pointed out) is that GW will not do a sweeping change to the fundamental stats in this edition. So if that just leaves us with points increases for the worst offenders, what should we be looking at?

Darklance (future brightlance) -
Cognis lascannon -
Multimelta -
But those aren't the worst offenders. Those types of weapons should be feared by vehicles.

It's everything else that's the problem.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/12 12:22:18


Post by: bullyboy


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 bullyboy wrote:
One thing that is painfully obvious (as Gadzilla pointed out) is that GW will not do a sweeping change to the fundamental stats in this edition. So if that just leaves us with points increases for the worst offenders, what should we be looking at?

Darklance (future brightlance) -
Cognis lascannon -
Multimelta -
But those aren't the worst offenders. Those types of weapons should be feared by vehicles.

It's everything else that's the problem.


such as????


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/12 12:26:08


Post by: H.B.M.C.


All the mid-strength mid-damage multi-shot weapons.

Why do you think so many people in this thread have been discussing changes to Toughness and damage reduction? To neuter or at the very least reduce the "chip damage" these weapons provide. Make it so that for anti-tank work you need anti-tank weapons.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/12 12:27:41


Post by: ClockworkZion


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
All the mid-strength mid-damage multi-shot weapons.

Why do you think so many people in this thread have been discussing changes to Toughness and damage reduction? To neuter or at the very least reduce the "chip damage" these weapons provide. Make it so that for anti-tank work you need anti-tank weapons.

Very much this. And if we fix the chip damage issue the heavier weapons can get a point bump because they wouldn't be competing with the chip damage so the game could be more balanced.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/12 12:30:20


Post by: bullyboy


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
All the mid-strength mid-damage multi-shot weapons.

Why do you think so many people in this thread have been discussing changes to Toughness and damage reduction? To neuter or at the very least reduce the "chip damage" these weapons provide. Make it so that for anti-tank work you need anti-tank weapons.


I totally disagree with this sentiment. Tanks were not a serious liability until MMs got their 2 shot +2D change and we entered into the 3+D3 damage range for weapons. Chip damage is not that bad in this edition, unlike 8th. I'm pretty sure most people here are more concerned with the cheap easy tank killers.
We have to at least be talking about the same problem here.

chip damage might take the final 1 or 2 wounds off a vehicle, and I'm totally fine with that, but they are not deleting vehicles at minimal cost.
In my opinion, if people really are thinking it's a problem with chip damage, I say change nothing, because I just don't see it.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/12 12:32:59


Post by: ClockworkZion


 bullyboy wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
All the mid-strength mid-damage multi-shot weapons.

Why do you think so many people in this thread have been discussing changes to Toughness and damage reduction? To neuter or at the very least reduce the "chip damage" these weapons provide. Make it so that for anti-tank work you need anti-tank weapons.


I totally disagree with this sentiment. Tanks were not a serious liability until MMs got their 2 shot +2D change and we entered into the 3+D3 damage range for weapons. Chip damage is not that bad in this edition, unlike 8th. I'm pretty sure most people here are more concerned with the cheap easy tank killers.
We have to at least be talking about the same problem here.

People spent the entire last edition complaining about chip damage. The only reason MM are better now was their boosted statline at the start of the edition paired with their criminally low points cost. If the points go up to fix that we'd see the chip damage come back.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/12 12:36:56


Post by: Gadzilla666


 Jidmah wrote:
 bullyboy wrote:
One thing that is painfully obvious (as Gadzilla pointed out) is that GW will not do a sweeping change to the fundamental stats in this edition. So if that just leaves us with points increases for the worst offenders, what should we be looking at?


Doing a sweeping update to the wounds characteristics of vehicles should be within GW's possibilities.

Possible? Sure, it would just require a FAQ. Likely? Ask my 1W CSM. Instigating the -1 damage rule for all vehicles would be more likely, as it wouldn't require as many other rules changes. But I still very much doubt gw doing it. They could surprise us though.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/12 12:39:08


Post by: bullyboy


 ClockworkZion wrote:
 bullyboy wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
All the mid-strength mid-damage multi-shot weapons.

Why do you think so many people in this thread have been discussing changes to Toughness and damage reduction? To neuter or at the very least reduce the "chip damage" these weapons provide. Make it so that for anti-tank work you need anti-tank weapons.


I totally disagree with this sentiment. Tanks were not a serious liability until MMs got their 2 shot +2D change and we entered into the 3+D3 damage range for weapons. Chip damage is not that bad in this edition, unlike 8th. I'm pretty sure most people here are more concerned with the cheap easy tank killers.
We have to at least be talking about the same problem here.

People spent the entire last edition complaining about chip damage. The only reason MM are better now was their boosted statline at the start of the edition paired with their criminally low points cost. If the points go up to fix that we'd see the chip damage come back.


with the current cost of vehicles (some got much cheaper this edition), chip damage will not be enough to do the job. You will need dedicated AT.
This discussion did not come about because of chip damage, it came about because there is no point bringing a 120-180pt tank when 0-15pt cost DL equivalents and MMs are deleting them with such ease.

You take a BS3 HB vs a typical T7 3+ vehicle with 12W. It takes 18 HBs to drop that vehicle. Frankly, there are just better targets for those HBs. It takes 3.5 DLs with same stats.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/12 12:42:06


Post by: ClockworkZion


 bullyboy wrote:
 ClockworkZion wrote:
 bullyboy wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
All the mid-strength mid-damage multi-shot weapons.

Why do you think so many people in this thread have been discussing changes to Toughness and damage reduction? To neuter or at the very least reduce the "chip damage" these weapons provide. Make it so that for anti-tank work you need anti-tank weapons.


I totally disagree with this sentiment. Tanks were not a serious liability until MMs got their 2 shot +2D change and we entered into the 3+D3 damage range for weapons. Chip damage is not that bad in this edition, unlike 8th. I'm pretty sure most people here are more concerned with the cheap easy tank killers.
We have to at least be talking about the same problem here.

People spent the entire last edition complaining about chip damage. The only reason MM are better now was their boosted statline at the start of the edition paired with their criminally low points cost. If the points go up to fix that we'd see the chip damage come back.


with the current cost of vehicles (some got much cheaper this edition), chip damage will not be enough to do the job. You will need dedicated AT.
This discussion did not come about because of chip damage, it came about because there is no point bringing a 120-180pt tank when 0-15pt cost DL equivalents and MMs are deleting them with such ease.

It's part of a larger problem, but go on pretending that if we didn't points bump those heavier weapons we wouldn't see the increase of chip damage due to the damage to points cost ratio tipping back in favor of them.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/12 12:46:07


Post by: bullyboy


 ClockworkZion wrote:
 bullyboy wrote:
 ClockworkZion wrote:
 bullyboy wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
All the mid-strength mid-damage multi-shot weapons.

Why do you think so many people in this thread have been discussing changes to Toughness and damage reduction? To neuter or at the very least reduce the "chip damage" these weapons provide. Make it so that for anti-tank work you need anti-tank weapons.


I totally disagree with this sentiment. Tanks were not a serious liability until MMs got their 2 shot +2D change and we entered into the 3+D3 damage range for weapons. Chip damage is not that bad in this edition, unlike 8th. I'm pretty sure most people here are more concerned with the cheap easy tank killers.
We have to at least be talking about the same problem here.

People spent the entire last edition complaining about chip damage. The only reason MM are better now was their boosted statline at the start of the edition paired with their criminally low points cost. If the points go up to fix that we'd see the chip damage come back.


with the current cost of vehicles (some got much cheaper this edition), chip damage will not be enough to do the job. You will need dedicated AT.
This discussion did not come about because of chip damage, it came about because there is no point bringing a 120-180pt tank when 0-15pt cost DL equivalents and MMs are deleting them with such ease.

It's part of a larger problem, but go on pretending that if we didn't points bump those heavier weapons we wouldn't see the increase of chip damage due to the damage to points cost ratio tipping back in favor of them.


so why now? Why wasn't this such a big issue before these new weapon stats?


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/12 12:49:02


Post by: H.B.M.C.


The reason MM's got a boost to lethality was to make them attractive as an anti-tank option, because there wasn't much point in bringing dedicated anti-tank weapons in 8th given how pathetic vehicles* are.

But the increased lethality of the MM meant that now vehicles were afraid of them and all the stuff that was already killing them, making vehicles even worse. Now trying to 'balance' anti-tank weapons would just be further missing the problem.



*Everything I say about vehicles applies to monsters as well, BTW.



How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/12 12:49:52


Post by: Gadzilla666


 ClockworkZion wrote:
Spoiler:
 bullyboy wrote:
 ClockworkZion wrote:
 bullyboy wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
All the mid-strength mid-damage multi-shot weapons.

Why do you think so many people in this thread have been discussing changes to Toughness and damage reduction? To neuter or at the very least reduce the "chip damage" these weapons provide. Make it so that for anti-tank work you need anti-tank weapons.


I totally disagree with this sentiment. Tanks were not a serious liability until MMs got their 2 shot +2D change and we entered into the 3+D3 damage range for weapons. Chip damage is not that bad in this edition, unlike 8th. I'm pretty sure most people here are more concerned with the cheap easy tank killers.
We have to at least be talking about the same problem here.

People spent the entire last edition complaining about chip damage. The only reason MM are better now was their boosted statline at the start of the edition paired with their criminally low points cost. If the points go up to fix that we'd see the chip damage come back.


with the current cost of vehicles (some got much cheaper this edition), chip damage will not be enough to do the job. You will need dedicated AT.
This discussion did not come about because of chip damage, it came about because there is no point bringing a 120-180pt tank when 0-15pt cost DL equivalents and MMs are deleting them with such ease.

It's part of a larger problem, but go on pretending that if we didn't points bump those heavier weapons we wouldn't see the increase of chip damage due to the damage to points cost ratio tipping back in favor of them.

Exactly what are these "chip damage" offenders? And how many of them do you think will be as effective now as they were in 8th? Enough stuff already has the -1 damage rules to make spamming 2D weapons a bad idea.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/12 12:56:39


Post by: Daedalus81


 ClockworkZion wrote:
People spent the entire last edition complaining about chip damage. The only reason MM are better now was their boosted statline at the start of the edition paired with their criminally low points cost. If the points go up to fix that we'd see the chip damage come back.


People complained, because they hate the concept - not because it was an effective method of tank killing.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/12 12:57:35


Post by: bullyboy


 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 ClockworkZion wrote:
Spoiler:
 bullyboy wrote:
 ClockworkZion wrote:
 bullyboy wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
All the mid-strength mid-damage multi-shot weapons.

Why do you think so many people in this thread have been discussing changes to Toughness and damage reduction? To neuter or at the very least reduce the "chip damage" these weapons provide. Make it so that for anti-tank work you need anti-tank weapons.


I totally disagree with this sentiment. Tanks were not a serious liability until MMs got their 2 shot +2D change and we entered into the 3+D3 damage range for weapons. Chip damage is not that bad in this edition, unlike 8th. I'm pretty sure most people here are more concerned with the cheap easy tank killers.
We have to at least be talking about the same problem here.

People spent the entire last edition complaining about chip damage. The only reason MM are better now was their boosted statline at the start of the edition paired with their criminally low points cost. If the points go up to fix that we'd see the chip damage come back.


with the current cost of vehicles (some got much cheaper this edition), chip damage will not be enough to do the job. You will need dedicated AT.
This discussion did not come about because of chip damage, it came about because there is no point bringing a 120-180pt tank when 0-15pt cost DL equivalents and MMs are deleting them with such ease.

It's part of a larger problem, but go on pretending that if we didn't points bump those heavier weapons we wouldn't see the increase of chip damage due to the damage to points cost ratio tipping back in favor of them.

Exactly what are these "chip damage" offenders? And how many of them do you think will be as effective now as they were in 8th? Enough stuff already has the -1 damage rules to make spamming 2D weapons a bad idea.


Glad I'm not crazy. I don't worry about chip damage this edition.

HBMC..The MM dropped in points for the most part, got a better damage attribute (D6+2), but more importantly gained an extra shot. Don't get me wrong, melta needed an improvement, totally agree. However, this massive boost to damage has to come at a cost, and it hasn't. The reason you can't buy Attack Bikes right now certainly isn't because of the Hvy Bolter!

If chip damage was so bad, nobody would be worrying about cheap raiders, they'd die to it easily enough. Trouble with raiders, is that super cheap (free) dark lance, and the fact that they have a 5++ that can stop the big guns coming in (among other benefits).


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/12 12:58:28


Post by: ClockworkZion


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
The reason MM's got a boost to lethality was to make them attractive as an anti-tank option, because there wasn't much point in bringing dedicated anti-tank weapons in 8th given how pathetic vehicles* are.

But the increased lethality of the MM meant that now vehicles were afraid of them and all the stuff that was already killing them, making vehicles even worse. Now trying to 'balance' anti-tank weapons would just be further missing the problem.



*Everything I say about vehicles applies to monsters as well, BTW.

Exactly this. It's a big reason I said that the changes I mentioned for tanks should be applied to monsters.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
 ClockworkZion wrote:
People spent the entire last edition complaining about chip damage. The only reason MM are better now was their boosted statline at the start of the edition paired with their criminally low points cost. If the points go up to fix that we'd see the chip damage come back.


People complained, because they hate the concept - not because it was an effective method of tank killing.

It was more effective than the "anti-tank" weapons we had in the game point for point. If we saw a points increase on anti-tank weapons to bring them back in line with their new stats we'd be right back where we started without some kind of change.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/12 13:08:14


Post by: bullyboy


 ClockworkZion wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
The reason MM's got a boost to lethality was to make them attractive as an anti-tank option, because there wasn't much point in bringing dedicated anti-tank weapons in 8th given how pathetic vehicles* are.

But the increased lethality of the MM meant that now vehicles were afraid of them and all the stuff that was already killing them, making vehicles even worse. Now trying to 'balance' anti-tank weapons would just be further missing the problem.



*Everything I say about vehicles applies to monsters as well, BTW.

Exactly this. It's a big reason I said that the changes I mentioned for tanks should be applied to monsters.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
 ClockworkZion wrote:
People spent the entire last edition complaining about chip damage. The only reason MM are better now was their boosted statline at the start of the edition paired with their criminally low points cost. If the points go up to fix that we'd see the chip damage come back.


People complained, because they hate the concept - not because it was an effective method of tank killing.

It was more effective than the "anti-tank" weapons we had in the game point for point. If we saw a points increase on anti-tank weapons to bring them back in line with their new stats we'd be right back where we started without some kind of change.


I disagree. If we appropriately costed these new AT wonder weapons, we might see more tank like constructs on the table. The meta may do it for us if it moves away from elite infantry and goes horde heavy. We're just not there yet.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/12 13:28:11


Post by: Gadzilla666


 ClockworkZion wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
 ClockworkZion wrote:
People spent the entire last edition complaining about chip damage. The only reason MM are better now was their boosted statline at the start of the edition paired with their criminally low points cost. If the points go up to fix that we'd see the chip damage come back.


People complained, because they hate the concept - not because it was an effective method of tank killing.

It was more effective than the "anti-tank" weapons we had in the game point for point. If we saw a points increase on anti-tank weapons to bring them back in line with their new stats we'd be right back where we started without some kind of change.

We've already had "some kind of change". We have an entire faction that laughs at the kind of weapons you're talking about, as well as an entire class of vehicles. But both of them melt when Mr. Eradicator and his buddy Attack Bike come to town. The problem is the new and improved (and underpriced) AT weapons. Death Guard and Dreadnoughts already make spamming 2D guns a big mistake.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/12 13:30:28


Post by: ClockworkZion


 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 ClockworkZion wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
 ClockworkZion wrote:
People spent the entire last edition complaining about chip damage. The only reason MM are better now was their boosted statline at the start of the edition paired with their criminally low points cost. If the points go up to fix that we'd see the chip damage come back.


People complained, because they hate the concept - not because it was an effective method of tank killing.

It was more effective than the "anti-tank" weapons we had in the game point for point. If we saw a points increase on anti-tank weapons to bring them back in line with their new stats we'd be right back where we started without some kind of change.

We've already had "some kind of change". We have an entire faction that laughs at the kind of weapons you're talking about, as well as an entire class of vehicles. But both of them melt when Mr. Eradicator and his buddy Attack Bike come to town. The problem is the new and improved (and underpriced) AT weapons. Death Guard and Dreadnoughts already make spamming 2D guns a big mistake.

Okay, try to keep up because I've said this already: if we fix the points costing issue of underpriced AT weapons the game will just shift back to the weapon that is more effective point for point over the one tailor made for the job.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/12 13:37:29


Post by: Galas


Why does people always ignore the ease of access to bonus to hit, wound, reroll to hit, to wound, and bonus ap?

Of course you need a ton of vanilla autocannons or heavy bolters or plasma guns to drop a predator or a leman russ.

But put a couple of buffs that everyone has, buffs that are better the more shots you are doing, and look how fast the math changes.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/12 13:38:25


Post by: Gadzilla666


 ClockworkZion wrote:
Spoiler:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 ClockworkZion wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
 ClockworkZion wrote:
People spent the entire last edition complaining about chip damage. The only reason MM are better now was their boosted statline at the start of the edition paired with their criminally low points cost. If the points go up to fix that we'd see the chip damage come back.


People complained, because they hate the concept - not because it was an effective method of tank killing.

It was more effective than the "anti-tank" weapons we had in the game point for point. If we saw a points increase on anti-tank weapons to bring them back in line with their new stats we'd be right back where we started without some kind of change.

We've already had "some kind of change". We have an entire faction that laughs at the kind of weapons you're talking about, as well as an entire class of vehicles. But both of them melt when Mr. Eradicator and his buddy Attack Bike come to town. The problem is the new and improved (and underpriced) AT weapons. Death Guard and Dreadnoughts already make spamming 2D guns a big mistake.

Okay, try to keep up because I've said this already: if we fix the points costing issue of underpriced AT weapons the game will just shift back to the weapon that is more effective point for point over the one tailor made for the job.

No, you try to keep up. Those already aren't effective anymore. You want to spam those kinds of weapons against me? Awesome. I won't have any worries bringing any of my tanks. You'll be all day trying to kill them and the dreadnoughts backing them up. And when you run into Death Guard you'll fall flat on your face.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/12 13:39:48


Post by: ClockworkZion


 Galas wrote:
Why does people always ignore the ease of access to bonus to hit, wound, reroll to hit, to wound, and bonus ap?

Of course you need a ton of vanilla autocannons or heavy bolters or plasma guns to drop a predator or a leman russ.

But put a couple of buffs that everyone has, buffs that are better the more shots you are doing, and look how fast the math changes.

There's a reason Imperial Fists were so good at anti-tank using heavy bolters before Marines got nerfed.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/12 13:46:04


Post by: Daedalus81


 ClockworkZion wrote:

Okay, try to keep up because I've said this already: if we fix the points costing issue of underpriced AT weapons the game will just shift back to the weapon that is more effective point for point over the one tailor made for the job.


It won't really though. That kind of dynamic is a bit dead. YMMV where you play, but the step down from D3+3 and Melta is D2. D2 is countered by DG, dreads, and likely other units in the near future. Pivoting to D1 will be even more difficult.

You could price them in such a way that they unit is just too expensive to risk and force people to use D2, but that's not going to happen.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Galas wrote:
Why does people always ignore the ease of access to bonus to hit, wound, reroll to hit, to wound, and bonus ap?

Of course you need a ton of vanilla autocannons or heavy bolters or plasma guns to drop a predator or a leman russ.

But put a couple of buffs that everyone has, buffs that are better the more shots you are doing, and look how fast the math changes.


Those bonuses are a lot harder to come by these days.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/12 13:50:10


Post by: ClockworkZion


 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 ClockworkZion wrote:
Spoiler:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 ClockworkZion wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
 ClockworkZion wrote:
People spent the entire last edition complaining about chip damage. The only reason MM are better now was their boosted statline at the start of the edition paired with their criminally low points cost. If the points go up to fix that we'd see the chip damage come back.


People complained, because they hate the concept - not because it was an effective method of tank killing.

It was more effective than the "anti-tank" weapons we had in the game point for point. If we saw a points increase on anti-tank weapons to bring them back in line with their new stats we'd be right back where we started without some kind of change.

We've already had "some kind of change". We have an entire faction that laughs at the kind of weapons you're talking about, as well as an entire class of vehicles. But both of them melt when Mr. Eradicator and his buddy Attack Bike come to town. The problem is the new and improved (and underpriced) AT weapons. Death Guard and Dreadnoughts already make spamming 2D guns a big mistake.

Okay, try to keep up because I've said this already: if we fix the points costing issue of underpriced AT weapons the game will just shift back to the weapon that is more effective point for point over the one tailor made for the job.

No, you try to keep up. Those already aren't effective anymore. You want to spam those kinds of weapons against me? Awesome. I won't have any worries bringing any of my tanks. You'll be all day trying to kill them and the dreadnoughts backing them up. And when you run into Death Guard you'll fall flat on your face.

You clearly are pretending that people don't have dmg 1 weapons in their armies for TAC lists. Additionally, if we're talking most effective for points value, not taking points hiked AT weapons would leave more room in your list for more guns to drown them in dice.

If we only raise points on the AT weapons to fix the issue then the community will just pursue what does the most damage per point spent. It does it all the time, that's how we ended up with a chip damage meta in the first place. You can not rebalance the points on AT weapons without addressing that issue in some fashion or we end up where we started.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
 ClockworkZion wrote:

Okay, try to keep up because I've said this already: if we fix the points costing issue of underpriced AT weapons the game will just shift back to the weapon that is more effective point for point over the one tailor made for the job.


It won't really though. That kind of dynamic is a bit dead. YMMV where you play, but the step down from D3+3 and Melta is D2. D2 is countered by DG, dreads, and likely other units in the near future. Pivoting to D1 will be even more difficult.

You could price them in such a way that they unit is just too expensive to risk and force people to use D2, but that's not going to happen.

Considering GW's history with double or triple nerfing things that are too good? Yeah, it can definitely happen.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/12 14:27:53


Post by: Gadzilla666


 ClockworkZion wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 ClockworkZion wrote:
Spoiler:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 ClockworkZion wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
 ClockworkZion wrote:
People spent the entire last edition complaining about chip damage. The only reason MM are better now was their boosted statline at the start of the edition paired with their criminally low points cost. If the points go up to fix that we'd see the chip damage come back.


People complained, because they hate the concept - not because it was an effective method of tank killing.

It was more effective than the "anti-tank" weapons we had in the game point for point. If we saw a points increase on anti-tank weapons to bring them back in line with their new stats we'd be right back where we started without some kind of change.

We've already had "some kind of change". We have an entire faction that laughs at the kind of weapons you're talking about, as well as an entire class of vehicles. But both of them melt when Mr. Eradicator and his buddy Attack Bike come to town. The problem is the new and improved (and underpriced) AT weapons. Death Guard and Dreadnoughts already make spamming 2D guns a big mistake.

Okay, try to keep up because I've said this already: if we fix the points costing issue of underpriced AT weapons the game will just shift back to the weapon that is more effective point for point over the one tailor made for the job.

No, you try to keep up. Those already aren't effective anymore. You want to spam those kinds of weapons against me? Awesome. I won't have any worries bringing any of my tanks. You'll be all day trying to kill them and the dreadnoughts backing them up. And when you run into Death Guard you'll fall flat on your face.

You clearly are pretending that people don't have dmg 1 weapons in their armies for TAC lists. Additionally, if we're talking most effective for points value, not taking points hiked AT weapons would leave more room in your list for more guns to drown them in dice.

If we only raise points on the AT weapons to fix the issue then the community will just pursue what does the most damage per point spent. It does it all the time, that's how we ended up with a chip damage meta in the first place. You can not rebalance the points on AT weapons without addressing that issue in some fashion or we end up where we started.

Umm, no. Not forgetting that. Those aren't going to kill my tanks as fast as multi-meltas either. They'd be fine if this calamity of yours happened. So problem solved.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/12 14:44:42


Post by: H.B.M.C.


I don't know what's so hard about this to understand.

If the choice is between a weapon that does everything kinda well, or a weapon that only does one thing really well, the better choice is the former, even if it's not effective at one specific role. Taking mid-strength mid-damage multi-shot weapons is good because they basically could do anything, even if it wasn't the most efficient thing to do. Taking dedicated anti-tank weapons was a crap shoot because of swingy damage (D6) and because they were too specific, sometimes too expensive, and just weren't actually any good (no one took Multi-Meltas before they turned them into proper AT weapons).

GW recognised that anti-tank weapons weren't really a big deal, so we saw an increase of the lethality (like the quantum shift the MM experienced). Unfortunately, the durability of vehicles did not change, so not only do we have the kinda-good weapons doing damage to them, but now the far-more-dangerous AT weapons. If you put the price on these more scary AT weapons up, people just go back to the weapons that can do everything, even if they don't do everything as well as the AT weapons kill tanks, because for the same price you can bring more of them.

It's the exact same concept of Guard heavy weaponry in 3rd/4th/5th. The Autocannon was S7. Krak missiles were S8. The Krak missile is clearly better, right? Well no, because it fires one shot at BS3 and the Autocannon fired 2. This meant that, on average, the Autocannon would hit once a turn, whereas the Krak Missile would miss 3 turns out of the usual 6 turn game. The Autocannon was a weaker weapon on paper, but it was always the better choice, because it was more reliable, and therefore ended up being more effective, even if it was a weaker weapon and couldn't hurt AV14. More lower strength shots were better than one higher strength shot.

The problem isn't the AT weaponry (although they did need to be better to actually be good at anti-tank work), the problem is that tanks can be killed by everything thanks to the stupid To Wound chart and the low wound counts on vehicles. Whether points on MMs need to go up or down is immaterial. The change needs to be made to the vehicles itself, be it reductions in damage, more wounds, something else, or all of the above.

Simply saying "Well it's no biggie with Dreadnoughts now" or "It doesn't bother Death Guard" is meaningless as it doesn't solve the fact that no one is taking Gladiators or Predators and similar vehicles/monsters. That vehicles (and a lot of monsters) tie up a hell of a lot of points for no return, as they're dead far too quickly thanks to the overall lethality of 40k (which all stems from that To Wound chart allowing anything to wound everything, making some weapons into jack-of-all-trade weapons by dint of just having a lot of shots and ok damage, which isn't what they're meant for).




How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/12 15:12:33


Post by: Aenar


Bring back (in part) the old wound chart:
2+ on a difference of 2 or more (S>>T)
3+ on a difference of 1 (S>T)
4+ on S=T
5+ on a difference of 1 (S<T)
6+ on a difference of 2 or more (S<<T)

It doesn't seem much, but this way S5 or S6 weapons wound T8 only on a 6+ (5+ currently, 6+ is for S4 and lower). Same for S5 vs T7.
The more obvious solution would be using higher T values (T9, T10, ...), but since they seem to be allergic to that, a different wound chart would partially solve the issue.



How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/12 15:26:28


Post by: bullyboy


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I don't know what's so hard about this to understand.

If the choice is between a weapon that does everything kinda well, or a weapon that only does one thing really well, the better choice is the former, even if it's not effective at one specific role. Taking mid-strength mid-damage multi-shot weapons is good because they basically could do anything, even if it wasn't the most efficient thing to do. Taking dedicated anti-tank weapons was a crap shoot because of swingy damage (D6) and because they were too specific, sometimes too expensive, and just weren't actually any good (no one took Multi-Meltas before they turned them into proper AT weapons).

GW recognised that anti-tank weapons weren't really a big deal, so we saw an increase of the lethality (like the quantum shift the MM experienced). Unfortunately, the durability of vehicles did not change, so not only do we have the kinda-good weapons doing damage to them, but now the far-more-dangerous AT weapons. If you put the price on these more scary AT weapons up, people just go back to the weapons that can do everything, even if they don't do everything as well as the AT weapons kill tanks, because for the same price you can bring more of them.

It's the exact same concept of Guard heavy weaponry in 3rd/4th/5th. The Autocannon was S7. Krak missiles were S8. The Krak missile is clearly better, right? Well no, because it fires one shot at BS3 and the Autocannon fired 2. This meant that, on average, the Autocannon would hit once a turn, whereas the Krak Missile would miss 3 turns out of the usual 6 turn game. The Autocannon was a weaker weapon on paper, but it was always the better choice, because it was more reliable, and therefore ended up being more effective, even if it was a weaker weapon and couldn't hurt AV14. More lower strength shots were better than one higher strength shot.

The problem isn't the AT weaponry (although they did need to be better to actually be good at anti-tank work), the problem is that tanks can be killed by everything thanks to the stupid To Wound chart and the low wound counts on vehicles. Whether points on MMs need to go up or down is immaterial. The change needs to be made to the vehicles itself, be it reductions in damage, more wounds, something else, or all of the above.

Simply saying "Well it's no biggie with Dreadnoughts now" or "It doesn't bother Death Guard" is meaningless as it doesn't solve the fact that no one is taking Gladiators or Predators and similar vehicles/monsters. That vehicles (and a lot of monsters) tie up a hell of a lot of points for no return, as they're dead far too quickly thanks to the overall lethality of 40k (which all stems from that To Wound chart allowing anything to wound everything, making some weapons into jack-of-all-trade weapons by dint of just having a lot of shots and ok damage, which isn't what they're meant for).




What units, exactly, do you foresee rising up to prominence if AT weapons are increased as suggested? I'm truly curious what this new boogeyman would be.
As it stands, nobody is going to be bringing vehicles right now, because they melt to melta and dark lances. If they were taken out of the equation, what would continue to stop people bringing armour? Please be specific instead of generalizing these mid tier weapons.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/12 16:09:05


Post by: Unit1126PLL


2 damage heavy Bolters were oppressive against vehicles in some Imperial Fists lists in 8th, to the point they didn't bother bringing other anti-tank weapons. That is the reason they FAQ'd the Fists thing to only work on heavy weapons with a Strength 7 or higher.

Now, though, *all* heavy bolters are Damage 2, though undercoated MMs outdo them now with the changes so the effect against tanks is hidden.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/12 16:42:18


Post by: Daedalus81


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
2 damage heavy Bolters were oppressive against vehicles in some Imperial Fists lists in 8th, to the point they didn't bother bringing other anti-tank weapons. That is the reason they FAQ'd the Fists thing to only work on heavy weapons with a Strength 7 or higher.

Now, though, *all* heavy bolters are Damage 2, though undercoated MMs outdo them now with the changes so the effect against tanks is hidden.


I think you're ignoring that those HBs exploded and were D3. No one else used HBs in such a fashion ergo HBs are not themselves oppressive.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/12 17:03:12


Post by: JNAProductions


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
2 damage heavy Bolters were oppressive against vehicles in some Imperial Fists lists in 8th, to the point they didn't bother bringing other anti-tank weapons. That is the reason they FAQ'd the Fists thing to only work on heavy weapons with a Strength 7 or higher.

Now, though, *all* heavy bolters are Damage 2, though undercoated MMs outdo them now with the changes so the effect against tanks is hidden.


I think you're ignoring that those HBs exploded and were D3. No one else used HBs in such a fashion ergo HBs are not themselves oppressive.
This was before Heavy Bolters got their D2 buff.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/12 17:46:23


Post by: Tyran


Heavy Bolters are only oppressive if you combine them with re-rolls to wound. Such re-rolls are harder to get in 9th, if they weren't then Space Marines wouldn't be getting their teeth kicked in by Dark Eldar (on paper, re-rolling Heavy Bolters would be very damn good against Raiders).

Hell Raiders also showcase this because everyone uses the Dark Lance, even though the Disintegrator cannon is basically a better Heavy Bolter.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/12 19:15:27


Post by: Dysartes


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Now, though, *all* heavy bolters are Damage 2, though undercoated MMs outdo them now with the changes so the effect against tanks is hidden.


Do fully-painted MMs perform even better?


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/12 19:50:13


Post by: waefre_1


 Dysartes wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Now, though, *all* heavy bolters are Damage 2, though undercoated MMs outdo them now with the changes so the effect against tanks is hidden.


Do fully-painted MMs perform even better?

Only if you nick yourself when assembling them and smear the blood on the weapon/nearby purity seals, of course.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/12 23:02:56


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Lol, best typo


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/13 10:34:09


Post by: ERJAK


 Galas wrote:
Why does people always ignore the ease of access to bonus to hit, wound, reroll to hit, to wound, and bonus ap?

Of course you need a ton of vanilla autocannons or heavy bolters or plasma guns to drop a predator or a leman russ.

But put a couple of buffs that everyone has, buffs that are better the more shots you are doing, and look how fast the math changes.


Full rerolls on hits and wounds bring a heavy bolter up to 1.5ish damage against a rhino on average, an increase of .5 damage. Full rerolls hits and wounds on multimeltas bring it up to 5.5 damage on average (no melta range) an increase of about 2.4 damage. Both are about 50% increases but because the heavy bolter starts so low it doesn't get as much benefit as the multimelta. Even accounting for the difference in price by taking 2 heavy bolters, you still end up doing about half the damage per point to a rhino equivalent. In melta range MMs do almost triple damage per point.



How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/13 12:07:46


Post by: Cornishman


Some tanks (and similar things) are good and really quite tasty - In my opinion things like the DG’s Plagueburst Crawler, Drukhari’s Ravager are in quite a nice space interms of points cost, offence and defence. The Castigator seems to be in a much better place than many tanks, and lot’s of the Ad-mec doesn’t look that bad either.

Thus, to me the issue is that a significant number of metal boxes aren’t a good space. So, to me the problem to solve is not about making all tanks better (e.g. by providing blanket buff to all tanky/ vehicly like things) but suitably targeting the sizeable number of tanks that are, tbh at the moment rather underwhelming.

When I look at some tanks that I’d consider in a ‘good’ space and thus that aren’t a couple of things stick out.
Damage – Lots of tanks main job is to hunt other tanks (and elite heavy infantry) with often some token antipersonnel firepower bought along for the ride. Recent codexes have had AT guns move away from the vast swingyness of D6 lascannons (or similar weapons), with Flat 3 or D3+3 being a rather common feature.
Durability – The one of the principal differentiators in a vehicles durability is an invulnerable save or T8. As far as I can see T6/7 with a 5++ is overall about comparable to T8 without. Most of the vehicles that I’d consider in a good place seem to have one of these features.
Cost – Those things in a good place seem to be appropriately costed for the capabilities…

Overall a scan of limited number of codexes shows a trend that those tanks that I’d consider ‘good’ are often providing a greater offence, matched with an improved defence for fewer points than those tanks I’d consider underwhelming.

Whilst many of these comparisons may be across codexes, there are the odd intracodex comparison (e.g. Predator vs Plague Burst Crawler).

I think changing a lot/most D6 damage things (i.e. lascannons and similar things for others) to D6 min 3, would help even out the damage output of vehicles across factions.
Combine this with appropriate points tweaks and most vehicles should be reasonably useful. Fine a tank with T7/11W/3+ isn’t going to hang around to long with D6(min 3)/D3+3 AT, but so long as it’s appropriately costed, I don’t have a problem with this.

I would welcome back tank-shock at it was cool. The 9E changes allowing vehicles to fire non-blast in engagement range was a nice buff, but doesn't solve the issue of really swingy damage, and that tanks seem to be that bit too pricy.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/13 12:10:27


Post by: ERJAK


Cornishman wrote:
Some tanks (and similar things) are good and really quite tasty - In my opinion things like the DG’s Plagueburst Crawler, Drukhari’s Ravager are in quite a nice space interms of points cost, offence and defence. The Castigator seems to be in a much better place than many tanks, and lot’s of the Ad-mec doesn’t look that bad either.

Thus, to me the issue is that a significant number of metal boxes aren’t a good space. So, to me the problem to solve is not about making all tanks better (e.g. by providing blanket buff to all tanky/ vehicly like things) but suitably targeting the sizeable number of tanks that are, tbh at the moment rather underwhelming.

When I look at some tanks that I’d consider in a ‘good’ space and thus that aren’t a couple of things stick out.
Damage – Lots of tanks main job is to hunt other tanks (and elite heavy infantry) with often some token antipersonnel firepower bought along for the ride. Recent codexes have had AT guns move away from the vast swingyness of D6 lascannons (or similar weapons), with Flat 3 or D3+3 being a rather common feature.
Durability – The one of the principal differentiators in a vehicles durability is an invulnerable save or T8. As far as I can see T6/7 with a 5++ is overall about comparable to T8 without. Most of the vehicles that I’d consider in a good place seem to have one of these features.
Cost – Those things in a good place seem to be appropriately costed for the capabilities…

Overall a scan of limited number of codexes shows a trend that those tanks that I’d consider ‘good’ are often providing a greater offence, matched with an improved defence for fewer points than those tanks I’d consider underwhelming.

Whilst many of these comparisons may be across codexes, there are the odd intracodex comparison (e.g. Predator vs Plague Burst Crawler).

I think changing a lot/most D6 damage things (i.e. lascannons and similar things for others) to D6 min 3, would help even out the damage output of vehicles across factions.
Combine this with appropriate points tweaks and most vehicles should be reasonably useful. Fine a tank with T7/11W/3+ isn’t going to hang around to long with D6(min 3)/D3+3 AT, but so long as it’s appropriately costed, I don’t have a problem with this.

I would welcome back tank-shock at it was cool. The 9E changes allowing vehicles to fire non-blast in engagement range was a nice buff, but doesn't solve the issue of really swingy damage, and that tanks seem to be that bit too pricy.


The Castigator is not an example of a tank that's in a good place. It's the second worse unit in the book behind the battle sanctum and that's only because the Sanctum is almost impossible to actually deploy.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/13 12:30:05


Post by: Cornishman


ERJAK wrote:
Cornishman wrote:
Some tanks (and similar things) are good and really quite tasty - In my opinion things like the DG’s Plagueburst Crawler, Drukhari’s Ravager are in quite a nice space interms of points cost, offence and defence. The Castigator seems to be in a much better place than many tanks, and lot’s of the Ad-mec doesn’t look that bad either.

Thus, to me the issue is that a significant number of metal boxes aren’t a good space. So, to me the problem to solve is not about making all tanks better (e.g. by providing blanket buff to all tanky/ vehicly like things) but suitably targeting the sizeable number of tanks that are, tbh at the moment rather underwhelming.

When I look at some tanks that I’d consider in a ‘good’ space and thus that aren’t a couple of things stick out.
Damage – Lots of tanks main job is to hunt other tanks (and elite heavy infantry) with often some token antipersonnel firepower bought along for the ride. Recent codexes have had AT guns move away from the vast swingyness of D6 lascannons (or similar weapons), with Flat 3 or D3+3 being a rather common feature.
Durability – The one of the principal differentiators in a vehicles durability is an invulnerable save or T8. As far as I can see T6/7 with a 5++ is overall about comparable to T8 without. Most of the vehicles that I’d consider in a good place seem to have one of these features.
Cost – Those things in a good place seem to be appropriately costed for the capabilities…

Overall a scan of limited number of codexes shows a trend that those tanks that I’d consider ‘good’ are often providing a greater offence, matched with an improved defence for fewer points than those tanks I’d consider underwhelming.

Whilst many of these comparisons may be across codexes, there are the odd intracodex comparison (e.g. Predator vs Plague Burst Crawler).

I think changing a lot/most D6 damage things (i.e. lascannons and similar things for others) to D6 min 3, would help even out the damage output of vehicles across factions.
Combine this with appropriate points tweaks and most vehicles should be reasonably useful. Fine a tank with T7/11W/3+ isn’t going to hang around to long with D6(min 3)/D3+3 AT, but so long as it’s appropriately costed, I don’t have a problem with this.

I would welcome back tank-shock at it was cool. The 9E changes allowing vehicles to fire non-blast in engagement range was a nice buff, but doesn't solve the issue of really swingy damage, and that tanks seem to be that bit too pricy.


The Castigator is not an example of a tank that's in a good place. It's the second worse unit in the book behind the battle sanctum and that's only because the Sanctum is almost impossible to actually deploy.


I described the Castigator '<as being> in a much better place than many tanks'. When compared to it's near neighbour the predator (whether loyalist, Chaos or DG) I think this is certianly the case. To me it doesn't look to shaby against any Russ without a demolisher cannon.

For clarity would you prefer:

'Some tanks (and similar things) are good and really quite tasty - In my opinion things like the DG’s Plagueburst Crawler, Drukhari’s Ravager are in quite a nice space interms of points cost, offence and defence. Lot’s of the Ad-mec doesn’t look that bad. Even the Castigator seems to be in a much better place than many tanks'?


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/14 00:28:43


Post by: Jarms48


I've been playing a Scion infantry horde list recently and I'm surprised how amazing they are at killing vehicles. I had the relic that allows a second order on a 4+, managed to give squads both Elimination Protocol Sanctioned and First Rank Fire Second Rank Fire, wow. Just wow.

I've played maybe 4 games with them now. They've killed Helldrakes, Lord of Discordants, Rhinos, Dreadnaughts, Devilfishes, and a Predator.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/14 03:14:18


Post by: jeff white


Jarms48 wrote:
I've been playing a Scion infantry horde list recently and I'm surprised how amazing they are at killing vehicles. I had the relic that allows a second order on a 4+, managed to give squads both Elimination Protocol Sanctioned and First Rank Fire Second Rank Fire, wow. Just wow.

I've played maybe 4 games with them now. They've killed Helldrakes, Lord of Discordants, Rhinos, Dreadnaughts, Devilfishes, and a Predator.


Can you offer more details? I expect no or few meltas in there?

Funny this thread, peeps had to go 6 pages before HBMC got the topic in focus.

The trouble imho begins and ends with treating everything the same using wounds and toughness.

And imho small arms fire should never be able to damage armor. Perhaps yes, volumes of heavy rifle fire might affect light armor, but there should be a difference in kind between armoured and not armoured, not only more wounds and higher toughness...


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/14 03:22:27


Post by: Tyran


 jeff white wrote:

And imho small arms fire should never be able to damage armor. Perhaps yes, volumes of heavy rifle fire might affect light armor, but there should be a difference in kind between armoured and not armoured, not only more wounds and higher toughness...


Yes, that is the armor save, it literally exists to differentiate bewteen armoured and not armoured, and the different degrees on how well armoured they can be.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/14 03:23:28


Post by: AnomanderRake


 Tyran wrote:
 jeff white wrote:

And imho small arms fire should never be able to damage armor. Perhaps yes, volumes of heavy rifle fire might affect light armor, but there should be a difference in kind between armoured and not armoured, not only more wounds and higher toughness...


Yes, that is the armor save, it literally exists to differentiate bewteen armoured and not armoured, and the different degrees on how well armoured they can be.


That's great, unless you let people stack buffs to get -2 or -3 AP on small arms and thereby break the distinction between armour-piercing and not armour-piercing...


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/14 03:31:22


Post by: Tyran


What small arms are AP-3?



How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/14 03:33:41


Post by: JNAProductions


 Tyran wrote:
What small arms are AP-3?

Bolt Rifles can hit AP-3 in Tactical Doctrine with a Strat or WT.
Stalker Bolt Rifles are AP-3 in Devastator Doctrine.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/14 04:25:18


Post by: ClockworkZion


 jeff white wrote:
Jarms48 wrote:
I've been playing a Scion infantry horde list recently and I'm surprised how amazing they are at killing vehicles. I had the relic that allows a second order on a 4+, managed to give squads both Elimination Protocol Sanctioned and First Rank Fire Second Rank Fire, wow. Just wow.

I've played maybe 4 games with them now. They've killed Helldrakes, Lord of Discordants, Rhinos, Dreadnaughts, Devilfishes, and a Predator.


Can you offer more details? I expect no or few meltas in there?

Funny this thread, peeps had to go 6 pages before HBMC got the topic in focus.

The trouble imho begins and ends with treating everything the same using wounds and toughness.

And imho small arms fire should never be able to damage armor. Perhaps yes, volumes of heavy rifle fire might affect light armor, but there should be a difference in kind between armoured and not armoured, not only more wounds and higher toughness...

I've tried to talk about the topic several times. Meanwhile people want to talk about planes.

Quite honestly I feel there are three major problems facing tanks:
1. Durability for their points cost
2. Anti-tank weapons being too cheap for their updated statlines
3. Lack of damage mitigation to encourage people to focus on using anti-tank weapons instead of chip damage

Now I know point 3 doesn't exist to some people, but consider it future proofing if the game starts to swing back to chip damage.

Point 1 and 3 are related in my mind and can be fixed with a wounds increase and a nerf to damage allocated to them, or a -1 to the wound roll, or maybe just a bonus to their armour save against weapons of a certain damage or strength value.

Point 2 just needs a small points bump across all the buffed anti-tank weapons.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/14 04:39:35


Post by: The Red Hobbit


 JNAProductions wrote:
Bolt Rifles can hit AP-3 in Tactical Doctrine with a Strat or WT.
Stalker Bolt Rifles are AP-3 in Devastator Doctrine.

I'm glad you pointed out small arms can stack AP to get to AP-3. We see Ignore AP-1 or AP-2 abilities in game, as a result I've seen many people suggest applying that rule to tanks as a simple solution to the problem of tanks getting mulched by non-AT weapons. But then we have AP-3 Bolters. If we continue that line of thought and give tanks Ignore AP-3 well that begins to affect a lot of weapons that should threaten tanks and the whole thing gets messy.

Perhaps a simple solution might be that only weapons with a Vehicle Bane special rule get to apply AP to Vehicles. This way the latest and greatest bolters can be AP-11 and punch a hole straight through the eye of terror but have no impact on your friendly neighborhood Leman Russ.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/14 05:38:27


Post by: AnomanderRake


 The Red Hobbit wrote:
...I'm glad you pointed out small arms can stack AP to get to AP-3. We see Ignore AP-1 or AP-2 abilities in game, as a result I've seen many people suggest applying that rule to tanks as a simple solution to the problem of tanks getting mulched by non-AT weapons. But then we have AP-3 Bolters. If we continue that line of thought and give tanks Ignore AP-3 well that begins to affect a lot of weapons that should threaten tanks and the whole thing gets messy.

Perhaps a simple solution might be that only weapons with a Vehicle Bane special rule get to apply AP to Vehicles. This way the latest and greatest bolters can be AP-11 and punch a hole straight through the eye of terror but have no impact on your friendly neighborhood Leman Russ.


Or...you could revise the to-wound table (including a "no" line) and skip needing to stack more special rules on top of special rules on top of special rules?


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/14 07:00:04


Post by: Blackie


 JNAProductions wrote:
 Tyran wrote:
What small arms are AP-3?

Bolt Rifles can hit AP-3 in Tactical Doctrine with a Strat or WT.
Stalker Bolt Rifles are AP-3 in Devastator Doctrine.


So the problem for some SM units is.... a bunch of other SM units. Nothing new here .


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/14 07:17:11


Post by: Jidmah


Yeah, DG bolters stack to... AP 0. Unless there is a lord of virulence within 6", then it's AP-1 on every 6 to wound you roll.

Well, technically you could use the worst stratagem in the book to have those bolters be AP-4 on rolls of sixes, but that stratagem specifically talks about plague infected eating through armor.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/14 07:30:25


Post by: The_Real_Chris


 ClockworkZion wrote:
 JNAProductions wrote:
What AA can my daemons take?

Nurgle daemons specifically, but honestly, what AA guns do daemons have at all?

Thoughts and prayers?


Nasty thoughts and prayers...

Honestly at this point I would hark back to 1st edition where weapons could do a lot of wounds, but vehicles had a lot of damage.

For comparison when multimelta did 4d6 damage Land Raiders had 50 damage points. So say if they are 2x D6 (D6+2) that would be against a t8 tank originally at 4+ to hit doing 3.5 damage per firing, it does 1.75 now... So if you wanted that dynamic back make a land raider 25 wounds (a bit much I suspect...).

If you want to go crazy have a critical hit mechanism. Do 6 or more damage with 1 shot (no extra dice to roll or plinking criticals) roll of a dice. 1-3 - immobilised (GW loves their exposed tracks), 4-5 - weapon of owning players choice destroyed, 6 - take D6 mortal wounds.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/14 09:20:54


Post by: Tyel


No one's taking stalker bolt rifles.

They certainly aren't taking them so 100 points worth can maybe do 2 wounds on a tank.

Really feel there's just a philosophy disagreement here. Yes if someone shoots 400-500 points worth of infantry into a tank they would expect to do some wounds, but... so? The fact a bolt gun can do some damage to a tank isn't oppressive, because by and large this is an inefficient use of firepower.

The whole issue of "mid-tier" guns feels like something from 8th and was made possible with rerolls. Disintegrators are not nearly as attractive versus tanks without reroll 1s to hit and wound (and successive points hikes). Plasma spam was a function of points - (its unclear S8 AP-3 2 damage is really a "mid tier" gun - the point is that 2 shots at 2 damage was more reliable than 1 D6 damage shot, for quite a bit more points.)

The issues are nu-anti tank, which can get 100% returns (or more) versus a range of tanks/monsters. And allowing your opponent such trades, from across the other side of the table with little counterplay beyond solid LOS-blocking terrain, is a good way to lose a game. So people avoid them by not playing these units.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/14 09:37:49


Post by: Not Online!!!


Tyel wrote:
No one's taking stalker bolt rifles.

They certainly aren't taking them so 100 points worth can maybe do 2 wounds on a tank.

Really feel there's just a philosophy disagreement here. Yes if someone shoots 400-500 points worth of infantry into a tank they would expect to do some wounds, but... so? The fact a bolt gun can do some damage to a tank isn't oppressive, because by and large this is an inefficient use of firepower.

No. Infact i only ever expect to scratch stuff like raiders if i use such weaponry against vehicles. there's a reason for AT weapons in squads and AT weapons in general to exist.

The whole issue of "mid-tier" guns feels like something from 8th and was made possible with rerolls. Disintegrators are not nearly as attractive versus tanks without reroll 1s to hit and wound (and successive points hikes). Plasma spam was a function of points - (its unclear S8 AP-3 2 damage is really a "mid tier" gun - the point is that 2 shots at 2 damage was more reliable than 1 D6 damage shot, for quite a bit more points.)

The issues are nu-anti tank, which can get 100% returns (or more) versus a range of tanks/monsters. And allowing your opponent such trades, from across the other side of the table with little counterplay beyond solid LOS-blocking terrain, is a good way to lose a game. So people avoid them by not playing these units.

So long the wound chart is what it is, and stuff like votwl exist mid strength weapons will quite easily devastate tanks if the pendulum swings back away from hyper efficent heavy AT in the form of the too cheap multi meltas.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/14 13:40:49


Post by: Jidmah


VotLW is an 8th edition stratagem which we already know will be nerfed.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/14 15:41:40


Post by: The Red Hobbit


 AnomanderRake wrote:

Or...you could revise the to-wound table (including a "no" line) and skip needing to stack more special rules on top of special rules on top of special rules?

Very true but part of the 8th Ed Design Philosophy which they seemed very happy about is that any weapon can wound anything. I don't think they're going to walk that one back for a while. I just hope we can get a resolution on making tanks more resilient that doesn't involve a proliferation of even more Invul saves.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/14 15:47:24


Post by: FezzikDaBullgryn


Make all weapons with strength half or less of the toughness, do neg 1 damage, to include 0.

Now you can't wound a titan ever with lasguns, autoguns, or bolters. But you can still shoot bolters at Rhinos or Custodes bikers.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/14 15:48:56


Post by: bat702


I think one thing that might help tanks survive, is if they can launch their smoke launchers when targeted, but without needing a stratagem. Also the whole I can't shoot this phase now is harsh, they should just get -1 to hit.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/14 15:51:04


Post by: Jidmah


FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Make all weapons with strength half or less of the toughness, do neg 1 damage, to include 0.

Now you can't wound a titan ever with lasguns, autoguns, or bolters. But you can still shoot bolters at Rhinos or Custodes bikers.


Yeah, I have thought about that as well, but essentially this would only hurt S3 weapons, which aren't a problem to begin with. Most people here seem to be complaining about S4-6 weapons.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/14 15:52:07


Post by: bat702


I still really like the idea of always wounding on a 6 and always doing atleast 1 damage.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/14 15:52:32


Post by: Jidmah


bat702 wrote:
I think one thing that might help tanks survive, is if they can launch their smoke launchers when targeted, but without needing a stratagem. Also the whole I can't shoot this phase now is harsh, they should just get -1 to hit.


I have probably blown over a dozen CP on landraider's smoke launchers and I can assure you -1 to hit doesn't do gak to help it survive


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/14 16:00:40


Post by: catbarf


I still think a 2+ save would go a long ways towards making actual tanks less vulnerable to small arms and low-AP mid-power guns, and more wounds would help boost vehicle survivability in general.

I'd rather not throw more special rules at things to fix a problem driven largely by the core statlines.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/14 16:11:39


Post by: Gadzilla666


Jidmah wrote:
bat702 wrote:
I think one thing that might help tanks survive, is if they can launch their smoke launchers when targeted, but without needing a stratagem. Also the whole I can't shoot this phase now is harsh, they should just get -1 to hit.


I have probably blown over a dozen CP on landraider's smoke launchers and I can assure you -1 to hit doesn't do gak to help it survive

Really? Helps mine. Guns tend to do less damage when they don't hit.

catbarf wrote:I still think a 2+ save would go a long ways towards making actual tanks less vulnerable to small arms and low-AP mid-power guns, and more wounds would help boost vehicle survivability in general.

I'd rather not throw more special rules at things to fix a problem driven largely by the core statlines.

Agreed. Tanks should have 2+ saves.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/14 16:25:53


Post by: Xenomancers


Tanks in general need +1T and +1Save for no additional cost. True tanks.



How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/14 16:32:06


Post by: Jidmah


 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Jidmah wrote:
bat702 wrote:
I think one thing that might help tanks survive, is if they can launch their smoke launchers when targeted, but without needing a stratagem. Also the whole I can't shoot this phase now is harsh, they should just get -1 to hit.


I have probably blown over a dozen CP on landraider's smoke launchers and I can assure you -1 to hit doesn't do gak to help it survive

Really? Helps mine. Guns tend to do less damage when they don't hit.


Then you might be quite lucky. The -1 to hit doesn't make guns "not hit", it just has a chance to do so, usually in a single turn, against a few weapons with very few shots. The average amount of damage prevented does not reflect what it actually does, which is quite likely to be absolutely nothing. Assuming six BS3+ anti-tank weapons hit your LR, the chance of the smoke changing anything about that is the same as not rolling a single three with six dice, which is 33.49%. So one in three times you just wasted your CP, and this doesn't even account for rolls where despite preventing one or two hits, the remaining ones still roll enough damage to destroy it.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/14 16:54:20


Post by: Gadzilla666


 Jidmah wrote:
Spoiler:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Jidmah wrote:
bat702 wrote:
I think one thing that might help tanks survive, is if they can launch their smoke launchers when targeted, but without needing a stratagem. Also the whole I can't shoot this phase now is harsh, they should just get -1 to hit.


I have probably blown over a dozen CP on landraider's smoke launchers and I can assure you -1 to hit doesn't do gak to help it survive

Really? Helps mine. Guns tend to do less damage when they don't hit.


Then you might be quite lucky. The -1 to hit doesn't make guns "not hit", it just has a chance to do so, usually in a single turn, against a few weapons with very few shots. The average amount of damage prevented does not reflect what it actually does, which is quite likely to be absolutely nothing. Assuming six BS3+ anti-tank weapons hit your LR, the chance of the smoke changing anything about that is the same as not rolling a single three with six dice, which is 33.49%. So one in three times you just wasted your CP, and this doesn't even account for rolls where despite preventing one or two hits, the remaining ones still roll enough damage to destroy it.

Well yeah, it's a dice game. Luck is always a factor. I'm "lucky" whenever I pass the tank's 5++ too, doesn't mean it doesn't help. And tanks need all the help they can get right now.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/14 17:02:44


Post by: FezzikDaBullgryn


The problem with the 6's always do damage is that the d6 system is inherently biased towards the attacker. To make it really effective we need to move to a D10 system. A 1-6 chance is no where near the probability that should result from a hapless human firing their las pistol at a charging Land Raider, and hitting a critical system. Neither is a 1-10 for that matter, but it's worlds better.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/14 17:27:58


Post by: Blndmage


There's no way I'm rolling 20 d10. That'd be horrible to try and read. 40 for a squad of Warriors, pfft madness.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/14 17:54:45


Post by: FezzikDaBullgryn


 Blndmage wrote:
There's no way I'm rolling 20 d10. That'd be horrible to try and read. 40 for a squad of Warriors, pfft madness.


It can't be any worse than the completely stupid dice designs that GW puts on their faction designs.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/14 19:00:55


Post by: sanguine40k


As I posted earlier:

Blanket -1 damage to prevent high-RoF chip damage weapons from being effective.

+1 T (bar raiders who already got that bump) to give a general improvement in survivability - most Tanks would then only be getting wounded on 6's from S4 weapons (the commonest basic Strength score for most troops).

+1w per 5 wounds or part thereof - +2w for current 6-10 wound vehicles, +3w for 11-15, etc.

Shift the wound break point for obscuring terrain to 22w (so no vehicles get caught by it that weren't already)

Shift degrading profiles up to 12w (for the same reason as above).


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/14 19:07:47


Post by: Tyran


And that's how you get a T9 W22 Damage -2 Mortarion, which would be even more insane.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/14 19:13:05


Post by: alextroy


The best simple idea I can come up with is +1 Armor Save for vehicles if the Strength of the weapon is lower than the vehicles Toughness. No impact on true anti-tank weapons but pulls down damage for High AP anti-personnel weapons.

As for any too good AT weapons, that is what points are for.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/14 19:17:38


Post by: Cybtroll


Alternatively we can use 1+ Save value for vehicles only and remove the caveat that 1 always fail. With some small adjustment if needed to ensure that Terminator in cover can be brought down by massed fire.

Essentially move the focus for anti-tank from nowhere (as it is now) to a specific stat. To Hit doesn't make sense. To Wound would have been the best, but that ships seems to be sailed. Damage can work, but then the same weapon will pop both a tank and a Demon.
What's left are Saves, and would be very beneficial if all Invulnerable would be removed from tank and use properly.

A 1+ Land Raider would save a Meltas at 5+. Semmes fine.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/14 19:20:39


Post by: Stormonu


Perhaps there should be a rule that a model cannot take more than one wound per turn from weapons that are half the strength of its toughness? That would still let units chip out an already badly damaged vehicle, but in no way shape or form being taken out by the likes of massed lasguns or somesuch, and make it that you'd want to aim the AT weapons at stuff rather than waste shots altogether for 1 wound.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/14 19:26:40


Post by: FezzikDaBullgryn


I think in this instance, Morty being a T8 monster, should suffer from AT fire.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/14 20:19:37


Post by: The Red Hobbit


 alextroy wrote:
The best simple idea I can come up with is +1 Armor Save for vehicles if the Strength of the weapon is lower than the vehicles Toughness. No impact on true anti-tank weapons but pulls down damage for High AP anti-personnel weapons.


Simple and clean I like that one a lot. Another option could be if the weapon's strength is lower than the Vehicle/Monster's toughness then they have a -1 to Wound rolls.
Although I worry that rule would be too harsh on Necron weaponry.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/14 20:41:30


Post by: xeen


I don't know why there is so much worry on this thread about S4 D1 weapons, regardless of AP against vehicles. Other than finishing off the last wound or two, how many vehicles has anyone lost to bolter fire? Those weapons, even ones like my TS inferno bolters with AP-2 are not the reason why the standard tank (like a predator) is suffering so much in the meta. It is the higher strength D2/D3 weapons and the D3+3 that are the problem. First, I think the D3+3 damage has proven itself to be just too damn good. Yes an AT gun rolling a D6 and getting a one sucks, but this is the pendulum totally the other way. All the D3+3 damage should be reduced to D6 minimum 3 damage. I think that would really help mitigate some of the horrendous AT firepower you are seeing from some lists that make vehicles so worthless. Melta is another problem, but Melta was terrible with one shot, and is super deadly with two shots, so maybe just a price increase to those weapons (or put is back to half range is D6 x 2 pick the highest).

As for the multi-shot higher strength D2/D3 weapons I think it is just a game mechanic in the core rules that will favor these weapons. Unless every take gets the reduce damage by -1, which I think would be to much, the only real way I can see effecting these weapons is improving the save. All true tanks should really have a 2+ save and a few more wounds. That is probably the best way to make them better. This is just my opinion.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/14 21:43:10


Post by: sanguine40k


 Tyran wrote:
And that's how you get a T9 W22 Damage -2 Mortarion, which would be even more insane.


We're talking about vehicles, primarily, but obviously a certain amount of common sense regarding not doubling up on units that have already had a buff in 9th.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/14 22:00:58


Post by: SemperMortis


I have to be honest, this stuff is cracking me up.

Nearly 2/3rds of the comments i've read with suggestions deal with removing small arms weapons from dealing dmg to vehicles. Guys, I hate to break it to you, but my Mek gunz and scrapjets aren't being killed by Bolt guns and splinter rifles, its the D6+2 and the D3+3 weapons that are over the top, you know, the weapons people are saying need to be buffed further because reasons?


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/14 22:08:06


Post by: ClockworkZion


SemperMortis wrote:
I have to be honest, this stuff is cracking me up.

Nearly 2/3rds of the comments i've read with suggestions deal with removing small arms weapons from dealing dmg to vehicles. Guys, I hate to break it to you, but my Mek gunz and scrapjets aren't being killed by Bolt guns and splinter rifles, its the D6+2 and the D3+3 weapons that are over the top, you know, the weapons people are saying need to be buffed further because reasons?

Most of that is under the assumption that they up points on the anti-tank weapons which could result in chip damage becoming more prevelant due to a higher efficiency ratio between points spent and dealing damage. It was more a point of the only thing needed to fix those weapons is a points bump, but it doesn't fix the underlying issues for vehicles.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/14 22:24:58


Post by: SemperMortis


 ClockworkZion wrote:

Most of that is under the assumption that they up points on the anti-tank weapons which could result in chip damage becoming more prevelant due to a higher efficiency ratio between points spent and dealing damage. It was more a point of the only thing needed to fix those weapons is a points bump, but it doesn't fix the underlying issues for vehicles.


Upping the points value isn't the answer, its reducing dmg in general. "Oh no, Multi-meltas now cost 50ppm...oh well, i'll switch over to Melta rifles". Think about this logically, even if they only fixed the anti-tank weapons, what actual dmg are small arms doing to vehicles? its not a general fix you need, its a few outliers. Are bolters causing issues? Against T5-T7 3+ vehicles it takes 13.5 Bolter shots to strip 1 wound. It takes 25 shots from my ork shootas to take 1 wound off a vehicle, Las rifles? against T6+ its 36 shots. So are you really overly concerned if 7-13 Marines, 12-13 Ork boyz or 18-36 Guardsmen strip 1 wound from a vehicle?



How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/14 22:39:31


Post by: alextroy


 xeen wrote:
I don't know why there is so much worry on this thread about S4 D1 weapons, regardless of AP against vehicles. Other than finishing off the last wound or two, how many vehicles has anyone lost to bolter fire? Those weapons, even ones like my TS inferno bolters with AP-2 are not the reason why the standard tank (like a predator) is suffering so much in the meta. It is the higher strength D2/D3 weapons and the D3+3 that are the problem. First, I think the D3+3 damage has proven itself to be just too damn good. Yes an AT gun rolling a D6 and getting a one sucks, but this is the pendulum totally the other way. All the D3+3 damage should be reduced to D6 minimum 3 damage. I think that would really help mitigate some of the horrendous AT firepower you are seeing from some lists that make vehicles so worthless. Melta is another problem, but Melta was terrible with one shot, and is super deadly with two shots, so maybe just a price increase to those weapons (or put is back to half range is D6 x 2 pick the highest).
I don't think D6 Min 3 (average 3.83) is really that big a difference from D3+3 (average 5 damage). When dealing with 10-11 wound models, 2-4 damaging hits are what you need to kill it. It's just a matter of what distribution in that range.

As for Melta, it would have been better off if half range just gave you D3+3 (average 5 damage) instead of the current 1d6+2 damage (average 5.5) because the spike damage would be lower given no possibility of 7 or 8 damage.

Still, ultimately that increase AT damage is precisely to allow AT weapons to actually do their job of killing tanks!


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/14 22:40:34


Post by: ClockworkZion


SemperMortis wrote:
 ClockworkZion wrote:

Most of that is under the assumption that they up points on the anti-tank weapons which could result in chip damage becoming more prevelant due to a higher efficiency ratio between points spent and dealing damage. It was more a point of the only thing needed to fix those weapons is a points bump, but it doesn't fix the underlying issues for vehicles.


Upping the points value isn't the answer, its reducing dmg in general. "Oh no, Multi-meltas now cost 50ppm...oh well, i'll switch over to Melta rifles". Think about this logically, even if they only fixed the anti-tank weapons, what actual dmg are small arms doing to vehicles? its not a general fix you need, its a few outliers. Are bolters causing issues? Against T5-T7 3+ vehicles it takes 13.5 Bolter shots to strip 1 wound. It takes 25 shots from my ork shootas to take 1 wound off a vehicle, Las rifles? against T6+ its 36 shots. So are you really overly concerned if 7-13 Marines, 12-13 Ork boyz or 18-36 Guardsmen strip 1 wound from a vehicle?


Melta rifles would see a points bump too since they're still anti-tank weapons, even if they're less efficient than MM.

And it's mostly not about small arms, it's about high rate of fire D2 weapons like Heavy Bolters, or Autocannons. There are a few edge cases like the Stalker Bolt Rifle that can chip damage, but it's more about the mid tier weapons.

That said, I've argued that it'd be better to future proof against returning to that meta in case something changes in the future that causes it to swing back that way over some kind of belief that 9th ed is a chip damage meta.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/14 23:06:00


Post by: JNAProductions


 alextroy wrote:
 xeen wrote:
I don't know why there is so much worry on this thread about S4 D1 weapons, regardless of AP against vehicles. Other than finishing off the last wound or two, how many vehicles has anyone lost to bolter fire? Those weapons, even ones like my TS inferno bolters with AP-2 are not the reason why the standard tank (like a predator) is suffering so much in the meta. It is the higher strength D2/D3 weapons and the D3+3 that are the problem. First, I think the D3+3 damage has proven itself to be just too damn good. Yes an AT gun rolling a D6 and getting a one sucks, but this is the pendulum totally the other way. All the D3+3 damage should be reduced to D6 minimum 3 damage. I think that would really help mitigate some of the horrendous AT firepower you are seeing from some lists that make vehicles so worthless. Melta is another problem, but Melta was terrible with one shot, and is super deadly with two shots, so maybe just a price increase to those weapons (or put is back to half range is D6 x 2 pick the highest).
I don't think D6 Min 3 (average 3.83) is really that big a difference from D3+3 (average 5 damage). When dealing with 10-11 wound models, 2-4 damaging hits are what you need to kill it. It's just a matter of what distribution in that range.

As for Melta, it would have been better off if half range just gave you D3+3 (average 5 damage) instead of the current 1d6+2 damage (average 5.5) because the spike damage would be lower given no possibility of 7 or 8 damage.

Still, ultimately that increase AT damage is precisely to allow AT weapons to actually do their job of killing tanks!
Question on your math! I'm getting 4 as the average of 1d6 min 3.

Can you show your work there? I want to know if I've been goofing.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/15 00:28:01


Post by: Jarms48



Can you offer more details? I expect no or few meltas in there?


No special weapons, just hotshot lasguns. I managed to give 2 out of 3 squads both first rank and elimation protocols. That's 37 hotshot bolts per squad. Hitting on 3+ so that's what? 24 - 25 hits. Wounding on 6's rerolling everything. So 7 - 8 wounds. If they have an Invul say 5++ then that's still 5 damage, per squad.

Not bad for lasguns.

That can be made better to if you pop the stratagem that makes them +1 strength. An S4 hotshot can suddenly wound up to T7 on a 5+.

The other funny unit I was using for AT work was plasma gun spam. I aerial dropped 3 tempestus command squads with 4 plasma guns in each, had a prime with the reroll 1 aura, and gave the squads the elimination protocol order. Overcharging has 8 shots, each AP-4 thanks to being Lions, potential there for 16 damage.

What small arms are AP-3?


Hotshot lasguns are AP-2, AP-3 if they're Lions.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/15 03:04:14


Post by: alextroy


 JNAProductions wrote:
 alextroy wrote:
 xeen wrote:
I don't know why there is so much worry on this thread about S4 D1 weapons, regardless of AP against vehicles. Other than finishing off the last wound or two, how many vehicles has anyone lost to bolter fire? Those weapons, even ones like my TS inferno bolters with AP-2 are not the reason why the standard tank (like a predator) is suffering so much in the meta. It is the higher strength D2/D3 weapons and the D3+3 that are the problem. First, I think the D3+3 damage has proven itself to be just too damn good. Yes an AT gun rolling a D6 and getting a one sucks, but this is the pendulum totally the other way. All the D3+3 damage should be reduced to D6 minimum 3 damage. I think that would really help mitigate some of the horrendous AT firepower you are seeing from some lists that make vehicles so worthless. Melta is another problem, but Melta was terrible with one shot, and is super deadly with two shots, so maybe just a price increase to those weapons (or put is back to half range is D6 x 2 pick the highest).
I don't think D6 Min 3 (average 3.83) is really that big a difference from D3+3 (average 5 damage). When dealing with 10-11 wound models, 2-4 damaging hits are what you need to kill it. It's just a matter of what distribution in that range.

As for Melta, it would have been better off if half range just gave you D3+3 (average 5 damage) instead of the current 1d6+2 damage (average 5.5) because the spike damage would be lower given no possibility of 7 or 8 damage.

Still, ultimately that increase AT damage is precisely to allow AT weapons to actually do their job of killing tanks!
Question on your math! I'm getting 4 as the average of 1d6 min 3.

Can you show your work there? I want to know if I've been goofing.
Your right. I had a figure wrong in my calculation. Makes the two methods that much less different. I suspect they just don't like the roll, but minimum method and therefore went with d3+3 instead. Also, it gives an even distribution of damage, a more esthetically pleasing result


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/15 06:09:03


Post by: ccs


SemperMortis wrote:
 ClockworkZion wrote:

Most of that is under the assumption that they up points on the anti-tank weapons which could result in chip damage becoming more prevelant due to a higher efficiency ratio between points spent and dealing damage. It was more a point of the only thing needed to fix those weapons is a points bump, but it doesn't fix the underlying issues for vehicles.


Upping the points value isn't the answer, its reducing dmg in general. "Oh no, Multi-meltas now cost 50ppm...oh well, i'll switch over to Melta rifles". Think about this logically, even if they only fixed the anti-tank weapons, what actual dmg are small arms doing to vehicles? its not a general fix you need, its a few outliers. Are bolters causing issues? Against T5-T7 3+ vehicles it takes 13.5 Bolter shots to strip 1 wound. It takes 25 shots from my ork shootas to take 1 wound off a vehicle, Las rifles? against T6+ its 36 shots. So are you really overly concerned if 7-13 Marines, 12-13 Ork boyz or 18-36 Guardsmen strip 1 wound from a vehicle?



Only because they shouldn't be doing it at all.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/15 06:46:48


Post by: BlaxicanX


Nah. There is nothing wrong with a lasgun being able to plink a wound off a baneblade. Not only is it fine balance wise but it provides nice cinematic moments as well.

The protest against anything being able to wound anything is completely arbitrary and isn't based off any kind of actual game design philosophy.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/15 11:46:50


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Well, actually, yes, it's based on the game design philosophy that immersion is important for the players (and that "realism" or "simulation" is the purpose of wargaming, as opposed to board gaming or playing pretend).

I would be justifiably deprecatory towards a rule-set that allowed an M1 Garand to plink damage onto a King Tiger in World War 2. It isn't "cinematic", it isn't historical, it isn't realistic. It's just, frankly, rather silly.

Like the scene with the Tiger in Saving Private Ryan, where a guy fires a tommy gun into the tank's vision slit. In 40k, that'd be "close combat" but even in real life, vision slits didn't work that way. They weren't vulnerable to small arms, if only you could aim well enough or get real close. They had several inches of armored glass to prevent precisely what happened in the film.

That wasn't epic or cinematic to me. It just made my suspension of disbelief bend almost to breaking.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/15 11:47:11


Post by: FezzikDaBullgryn


SemperMortis wrote:
I have to be honest, this stuff is cracking me up.

Nearly 2/3rds of the comments i've read with suggestions deal with removing small arms weapons from dealing dmg to vehicles. Guys, I hate to break it to you, but my Mek gunz and scrapjets aren't being killed by Bolt guns and splinter rifles, its the D6+2 and the D3+3 weapons that are over the top, you know, the weapons people are saying need to be buffed further because reasons?


I think my hurricane bolter bikes would disagree with you. Obviously not against Morty, but against other T8 units, I have had zero problems shooting them off the board with massed bike fire from just S4 AP0 D1 guns.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/15 11:51:48


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Also, from a game design perspective, if it really takes 72 lasgun shots to do a wound to a Land Raider (about right mathematically assuming BS4+ guardsmen), then why allow everything to hurt everything from a purely pragmatic perspective?

Clearly it is simpler to say "land raider immune to lasguns" then to force players to issue FRFSRF, roll a bazillion dice, reroll 1s (because Yarrick, why not), roll a bazillion more dice to wound (and reroll ones again because of Bring it Down, because why not), and then roll some fraction of that bazillion to save just to get two wounds on a Land Raider or whatever.

Feels like a lot of needless rolling and time-wasting for an element that isn't cinematic, isn't realistic, and isn't necessary.

So either:
a) small arms do enough against tanks to matter, in which case they should probably be nerfed
or
b) small arms don't do much against tanks already, in which case making tanks immune changes nothing aside from improving the game from both speed and immersion perspectives.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/15 12:05:12


Post by: Blackie


To kill a 40ppm Smasha gunz using S4 AP0 D1 weapons you need 40 shots, assuming you're firing at BS3+ with no re-rolls. Also assuming there's no cover of any kind.

Yeah, zero problems means using models that cost hundred of points that need to be in rapid fire range (maybe they have to max out the shots anyway though) and minutes of dice rolling just to delete a vehicle that worths 40.

To strip a single wound off a naut (or any other T8 3+ save model) you need 27 shots. If the model has 2+ like a LR then you need 54 shots.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/15 12:30:32


Post by: kirotheavenger


 Unit1126PLL wrote:

So either:
a) small arms do enough against tanks to matter, in which case they should probably be nerfed
or
b) small arms don't do much against tanks already, in which case making tanks immune changes nothing aside from improving the game from both speed and immersion perspectives.

I agree with this completely.
I think there's three reasons to implement a rule; thematics, fun, and balance.
Small arms damaging tanks isn't really thematic. You can sort of twist yourself to justify it but it always feels very contrived.
It's not really fun, throwing mountains of dice and doing almost no damage is just a bore. Frankly, small arms vs other infantry often falls into this trap at the moment, let alone vs tanks.
Balance is perhaps the only justification for it. GW doesn't want the frustration of your opponent plonking down a knight army and immediately rendering 2/3 of your army totally useless. But that's a specific problem that shouldn't drag down the rest of the game. Ultimately I think the negative drag of the thematic and fun elements overrule this and mean small arms shouldn't be able to wound tanks.

I'd like to just return to the old to-wound table. It's clear statlines were designed to use that table, it'd reduce the effect of small arms and mid-strength weapons against tanks, and even enhance the capability of powerful AT weapons against light vehicles. Seems like a win-win to me.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/15 12:37:50


Post by: FezzikDaBullgryn


Right now I am picturing a gif of tom hanks firing his 1911 at a German tank that's advancing towards him, and on the last shot the tank blows up.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/15 12:48:30


Post by: Jidmah


FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Right now I am picturing a gif of tom hanks firing his 1911 at a German tank that's advancing towards him, and on the last shot the tank blows up.


More accurately, Tom Hanks and his 431 clones.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/15 12:49:12


Post by: Unit1126PLL


FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Right now I am picturing a gif of tom hanks firing his 1911 at a German tank that's advancing towards him, and on the last shot the tank blows up.

That gif cuts short right before the P-51 flies over with rockets under the wings and Tom Hanks whispers "angels on our shoulders" which is one of the movie taglines.

But sure, his 1911 killed the tank.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/15 13:13:15


Post by: kirotheavenger


The plane in SPR didn't have rockets, it just strafed the tank to death!
But I fear we'll veer a little off topic if we start debating the viability of aircraft as tank crackers in WW2.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/15 13:32:00


Post by: Eldenfirefly


Don't think we want tanks to be totally immune to small arms fire. Because by extension, these same tanks might end up being totally immune to many forms of close combat attacks. Some melee units are just Str 4, but rely on many many attacks to get through. If a tank is immune to a Str 4 bolter, by the same extension that tank will now be immune to a Str 4 astartes chainsword ?

And we have to be careful about Dreadnaughts too. Dreadnaughts are already preferred over tanks in many lists. If any change further buffs dreadnaughts as well, you still won't see any tank on the field, but you may see more and more Dreadnaughts and their equivalents.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/15 13:33:35


Post by: FezzikDaBullgryn


My point is it's a perfect allegory for what 9th is now. Yes, that .45 1911 is capable of dropping a human soldier in a single shot, it doesn't have to even be well aimed. But it should NEVER cause a tank to suddenly explode. which is what Las pistols can seemingly do in 8th/9th with an extremely good roll.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/15 13:54:54


Post by: Xenomancers


 Tyran wrote:
And that's how you get a T9 W22 Damage -2 Mortarion, which would be even more insane.

I don't think monsters need anything mostly. They typical have melee ability to cover from their lack of defense. Plus - the majority of monsters also have an invune save.

I am thinking in particular about a certain breed of tanks. The T8 no invune ones...The ones with a hint at being tough without actually being tough.
Landraiders/Repuslors/Battlewaggons/Baneblades/Viindicators, ECT

A few monsters I can think of that do need defensive help - Haruspex/Tyranofex

All these units got T8 but it does nothing most of the time. They should all just go to T9 2+ save. Because the T8 3+ save profile is barely an upgrade from T7 3+.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/15 14:13:00


Post by: Tyran


 Xenomancers wrote:
I don't think monsters need anything mostly. They typical have melee ability to cover from their lack of defense. Plus - the majority of monsters also have an invune save.


That's like saying vehicles don't need anything because Raiders and Plagueburts Crawlers are borderline OP.

Some monsters are fine, specially the ones that already got a 9th upgrade, but most of them? seriously doubting that claim.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/15 14:21:20


Post by: Karol


yep for nids for example. pre nerf demi, the tyrants as obligatory choice and then the gun monsters that double tap when stationary. Everything else is really bad. I don't normally get to expiriance other armies being bad. But after seeing what 10 paladins did to two trygons, I think that the trygs should either be a lot cheaper or made better in some way.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/15 14:21:51


Post by: Xenomancers


 Tyran wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
I don't think monsters need anything mostly. They typical have melee ability to cover from their lack of defense. Plus - the majority of monsters also have an invune save.


That's like saying vehicles don't need anything because Raiders and Plagueburts Crawlers are borderline OP.

Some monsters are fine, specially the ones that already got a 9th upgrade, but most of them? seriously doubting that claim.

Okay lets talk monsters then.
Space marines have one monster - Gman - hes awesome.
Deathgaurd have a few mosnters - daemon prince / morty - they really good
Daemons - they tones of monsters - Most of them are competitive - LOC/ KOS/ are some of the best units in the game... Keep in mind every single one of these models listed have an invune save.
Tau riptide - has a 3++ save and a 2 save...It's fine defensively the army just can't hold an objective.
Ghazgul Thrakka...Kinda good? Also have a 2+ 4++
Nids are the only army I can really think of that has some bad monsters - It's cause they don't have invune saves for the most part. I'd say for the T8 3+ profiles...give them T9 2+ would make those units literally awesome. For the T7 3+ profiles - just give them a 5++ save like the rest of the monsters in the game have for the most part and call it a day.



How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/15 14:23:47


Post by: JNAProductions


Great Unclean One?
Bloodthirster?


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/15 14:26:21


Post by: Xenomancers


 JNAProductions wrote:
Great Unclean One?
Bloodthirster?
They got invune saves. They are more tough than a tank without one as a result. Their issue of suckage if they do indeed suck...is related to points.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/15 14:34:00


Post by: JNAProductions


 Xenomancers wrote:
 JNAProductions wrote:
Great Unclean One?
Bloodthirster?
They got invune saves. They are more tough than a tank without one as a result. Their issue of suckage if they do indeed suck...is related to points.
It takes 183 BS3+ Bolter shots to kill a GUO.
It takes 864 of the same to kill a Land Raider.
432 for a Repulsor.

If they're AP-1, the number stays the same on the GUO, but drops to 432 for the Land Raider or 288 for the Repulsor.
If they're AP-2, 288 for the Raider, 216 for the Repuslor.
If you manage to net AP-3 on your Bolters, then the Raider takes 216 and the Repulsor is FINALLY less durable than a GUO, with 173 shots needed to kill.

They also have guns. The GUO can take a gun, but it's 7" range.
The GUO is also slower.

Edit: GUO is also 18 wounds, so can't hide behind Obscuring terrain.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/15 16:10:48


Post by: Xenomancers


Pretty sure the GUO can take exaulted abilities...Then as a result becomes much more durable.

Not sure why the GUO doesn't have a 3+ save???


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/15 16:32:43


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Eldenfirefly wrote:
Don't think we want tanks to be totally immune to small arms fire. Because by extension, these same tanks might end up being totally immune to many forms of close combat attacks. Some melee units are just Str 4, but rely on many many attacks to get through. If a tank is immune to a Str 4 bolter, by the same extension that tank will now be immune to a Str 4 astartes chainsword ?

And we have to be careful about Dreadnaughts too. Dreadnaughts are already preferred over tanks in many lists. If any change further buffs dreadnaughts as well, you still won't see any tank on the field, but you may see more and more Dreadnaughts and their equivalents.


This is how it was in earlier editions.

Tell me why tanks shouldn't be immune to loads of CC attacks again?

It's not like 30 people hitting an M1 tank with ball-peen hammers will equate to one person hitting it with a Thunderhammer....


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/15 16:40:35


Post by: Tyran


Because most of those CC attacks come from super-human warriors, aliens and daemons.

And I recall loads of S4 melee attacks being able to glance most vehicles to death, so depends on the edition.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/15 16:50:29


Post by: Unit1126PLL


 Tyran wrote:
Because most of those CC attacks come from super-human warriors, aliens and daemons.

And I recall loads of S4 melee attacks being able to glance most vehicles to death, so depends on the edition.


S4 shooting attacks could also glance those vehicles to death - as long as they were in the correct facing.

And so what? The tanks are made of super-unobtainium-armor that incorporates hexagrammatic wards. If they wanted those creatures to hit harder then a boltgun round would impact the armor, then they (shockingly) would give them better stats than a boltgun round.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/15 16:52:31


Post by: SemperMortis


FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
SemperMortis wrote:
I have to be honest, this stuff is cracking me up.

Nearly 2/3rds of the comments i've read with suggestions deal with removing small arms weapons from dealing dmg to vehicles. Guys, I hate to break it to you, but my Mek gunz and scrapjets aren't being killed by Bolt guns and splinter rifles, its the D6+2 and the D3+3 weapons that are over the top, you know, the weapons people are saying need to be buffed further because reasons?


I think my hurricane bolter bikes would disagree with you. Obviously not against Morty, but against other T8 units, I have had zero problems shooting them off the board with massed bike fire from just S4 AP0 D1 guns.


Hurricane bolter bikes? But yeah, whatever, if you want to waste bolter shots against a Mek gun, enjoy. Without cover it takes 40.5 bolter shots at BS3 to kill 1 Mek Gun. Congrats, your 40.5 bolter shots killed 40pts of Mek gun.

Against T8 you had no problem shooting them off the board you say? yeah, that isn't exactly true is it? a T8 monster/vehicle with a 3+ save takes 27 shots just to get 1 wound off (27 shots, 18 hits, 3 wounds 1dmg) since most T8 units have 14+ wounds you are saying you had no problem unloading 378+ shots a turn from bolters? Well, if that is the case, i'm pretty sure the game would be over against no vehicle lists insanely fast since those same 378 shots kill 21 Primaris Marines a turn.
 ClockworkZion wrote:

Melta rifles would see a points bump too since they're still anti-tank weapons, even if they're less efficient than MM.

And it's mostly not about small arms, it's about high rate of fire D2 weapons like Heavy Bolters, or Autocannons. There are a few edge cases like the Stalker Bolt Rifle that can chip damage, but it's more about the mid tier weapons.

That said, I've argued that it'd be better to future proof against returning to that meta in case something changes in the future that causes it to swing back that way over some kind of belief that 9th ed is a chip damage meta.


Ah, well that is moving the goal posts a bit, I was specifically talking about small arms and mentioned a plethora of them specifically (bolters, shootas, las guns). As far as Heavy bolters/auto-cannons. A Heavy Bolter is in a wonderfully terrible place right now in terms of meta, in a GT awhile back an Ork player won, and they did so because the entire meta brought anti-marine weapons D2+ with lots of AP. The only game that ork came close to losing was against a SOB list that brought a fethload of Heavy bolters, this gave the SOB player a lot of anti-horde firepower while simultaneously giving them a TON of anti-elite infantry and anti-vehicle firepower since at S5 -1AP and D2 it actually does decent work for its price against most vehicles. A Single Heavy bolter on a BS3+ platform averages 3 shots, 2 hits, and against a T6-9 vehicle thats 0.66 wounds for 0.33 unsaved wounds or 0.66dmg Not bad for a 10pt weapon system. Comparatively a Bolter is 2 shots, 1.33 hits, 0.44 wounds and 0.15dmg So the heavy bolter is more than 3x more effective and costs significantly less than just using bolters (Heavy Bolter Marine is 28pts 3+ marines with bolters would be 64+pts)

So the real question. Why did GW buff the heavy bolter to be D2? simply put? because GW gave the largest single action in the game 2 wounds each and forgot to realize most armies didn't have an answer to 18-20pt infantry with T4 2 wounds and a 3+ save except to spam anti armor weapons and things similar to the Heavy bolter which became a mainstay of most forces. You won't hear me complain about nerfing the Heavy bolter back to 1dmg.

The auto-cannon on the other hand. That isn't high rate of fire, its 2 shots (D3 for orkz) and 2D3 for Marines because SPEESE MEHREENS! Its itself a 10pt upgrade and against most vehicles does similar dmg to vehicles. 2 shots, 1.33 hits, 0.67 wounds and 0.33 unsaved to go right back to 0.67ish dmg a turn. It does better vs T5 and T6 but not by an appreciable amount and it does the same at T8




How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/15 17:02:01


Post by: JNAProductions


 Xenomancers wrote:
Pretty sure the GUO can take exaulted abilities...Then as a result becomes much more durable.

Not sure why the GUO doesn't have a 3+ save???
Pretty sure you can use various strats to make your vehicles more durable too. Not to mention, they’re a lot killier.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/15 23:22:25


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 Xenomancers wrote:
Nids are the only army I can really think of that has some bad monsters
Heheheheh. "Some".


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/15 23:37:24


Post by: AnomanderRake


 Tyran wrote:
Because most of those CC attacks come from super-human warriors, aliens and daemons...


And...in-universe the tank's armour isn't designed to account for the fact that most everyone on the battlefield is superhuman...because...?


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/16 00:04:25


Post by: Tyran


 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Tyran wrote:
Because most of those CC attacks come from super-human warriors, aliens and daemons...


And...in-universe the tank's armour isn't designed to account for the fact that most everyone on the battlefield is superhuman...because...?

Considering most of those tanks are WW1 designs, I wouldn't trust their engineering to be honest

And in-universe we even have example of Daemon infantry being very good at killing tanks in melee combat in Godblight.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/16 00:11:02


Post by: Jarms48


Honestly, I think the simplest way is to probably just buff their toughness.

Something like:

Increase to T8:
- Hammerheads
- Predators

Increase to T9:
- Baneblades
- Knights (you kinda have to buff them if you buff everything else)
- Landraiders
- Leman Russ Tanks
- Macharius Tanks
- Malcadors
- Stompa

Obviously there's probably more that could be added here these are just the first ones I could think of.

Maybe then just tweak their wounds slightly (I think I mentioned it in another thread). Basically any vehicle with 11 wounds should go up to 12, Leman Russ tanks could go up to 14, Landraiders to 18, Macharius Tanks to 24, and Baneblades to 28.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/16 01:27:24


Post by: The Red Hobbit


That's a very reasonable solution and easy to playtest to see how well it will work out. I'm always curious how they playtest at GW if it involves minor tweaks like this.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/18 14:19:14


Post by: The_Real_Chris


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Eldenfirefly wrote:
Don't think we want tanks to be totally immune to small arms fire. Because by extension, these same tanks might end up being totally immune to many forms of close combat attacks. Some melee units are just Str 4, but rely on many many attacks to get through. If a tank is immune to a Str 4 bolter, by the same extension that tank will now be immune to a Str 4 astartes chainsword ?

And we have to be careful about Dreadnaughts too. Dreadnaughts are already preferred over tanks in many lists. If any change further buffs dreadnaughts as well, you still won't see any tank on the field, but you may see more and more Dreadnaughts and their equivalents.


This is how it was in earlier editions.

Tell me why tanks shouldn't be immune to loads of CC attacks again?

It's not like 30 people hitting an M1 tank with ball-peen hammers will equate to one person hitting it with a Thunderhammer....


I would be quite happy with the toughness system changing to:-

Str more than double Toughness - No wound possible. (No more lasguns wounding tanks...)
Str double Toughness - 6+ to wound
Str less than Toughness - 5+ to wound
Str the same as toughness - 4+ to wound
Str higher than Toughness - 3+ to wound
Str double Toughness - 2+ to wound
Str more than double toughness - Auto wound (yes lascannons vaporise Guardsmen)



Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Clearly it is simpler to say "land raider immune to lasguns" then to force players to issue FRFSRF, roll a bazillion dice, reroll 1s (because Yarrick, why not), roll a bazillion more dice to wound (and reroll ones again because of Bring it Down, because why not), and then roll some fraction of that bazillion to save just to get two wounds on a Land Raider or whatever.

Feels like a lot of needless rolling and time-wasting for an element that isn't cinematic, isn't realistic, and isn't necessary.


Good gods yes. And you would be amazed how much people push back against this idea. So I dutifully take 4 hours to play a game with them as each 50 point squad gets to fire 37/36+D6 str 3 shots pointlessly at the only target in range, a big tough tank.

Note the IG rules should really aim at speeding that army up. For example - FRFSRF, make it lasguns auto hit, rather than double their BS4+ shots. Same number of wound rolls, but so much faster...


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/18 14:58:33


Post by: The Red Hobbit


The_Real_Chris wrote:

I would be quite happy with the toughness system changing to:-

Str more than double Toughness - No wound possible. (No more lasguns wounding tanks...)
Str double Toughness - 6+ to wound
Str less than Toughness - 5+ to wound
Str the same as toughness - 4+ to wound
Str higher than Toughness - 3+ to wound
Str double Toughness - 2+ to wound
Str more than double toughness - Auto wound (yes lascannons vaporise Guardsmen)

I'm a big fan of this, I'm going to try it as a house rule with our group.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/18 15:26:50


Post by: Jidmah


The_Real_Chris wrote:
I would be quite happy with the toughness system changing to:-

Str more than double Toughness - No wound possible. (No more lasguns wounding tanks...)
Str double Toughness - 6+ to wound
Str less than Toughness - 5+ to wound
Str the same as toughness - 4+ to wound
Str higher than Toughness - 3+ to wound
Str double Toughness - 2+ to wound
Str more than double toughness - Auto wound (yes lascannons vaporise Guardsmen)


I'm not sure I'm too fond of S7 auto-wounding T3 or S9 outwounding T4. But outside of that, sure, why not? At least it would give extremely high strength values a purpose.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/18 17:36:46


Post by: leerm02


I'm onboard with this new wounding system as well :-)


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/18 17:51:54


Post by: The_Real_Chris


 Jidmah wrote:


I'm not sure I'm too fond of S7 auto-wounding T3 or S9 outwounding T4. But outside of that, sure, why not? At least it would give extremely high strength values a purpose.


You haven't lived until you have vapourised a T3 unit with no saves with a MM...

We did that for speed along with a few other things, the rule mostly impacts of T3 units, T4 is very rarely affected. Does make things harder for guard and especially eldar (1/6th of the time).


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/18 17:58:05


Post by: G00fySmiley


In the name of the 9th edition simplicity of rules. how would adding to category vehicle "-1 to wound"


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/18 18:14:20


Post by: Jidmah


The_Real_Chris wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:


I'm not sure I'm too fond of S7 auto-wounding T3 or S9 outwounding T4. But outside of that, sure, why not? At least it would give extremely high strength values a purpose.


You haven't lived until you have vapourised a T3 unit with no saves with a MM...

We did that for speed along with a few other things, the rule mostly impacts of T3 units, T4 is very rarely affected. Does make things harder for guard and especially eldar (1/6th of the time).


I guess it depends on your armies. I'm playing orks, so I have easy access to S10+ in melee, which would suddenly be auto-wounding marines, terminators and the like. Not that they couldn't use the boost currently, but it doesn't seem that healthy.
On the flip side, against my DG everyone is T3 and I would be auto-wounding eldar and humans with heavy flamers.

So yes, the idea is good, but would also crank up lethality by a lot, not something I think is that good for the game as it is now. Such a chance would require a lot of re-evaluation of rules and points across all armies.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/18 18:32:30


Post by: Altruizine


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Well, actually, yes, it's based on the game design philosophy that immersion is important for the players (and that "realism" or "simulation" is the purpose of wargaming, as opposed to board gaming or playing pretend).

Untrue.

The immersion argument is used incredibly selectively. For some strange, inexplicable reason Tank Gang doesn't have their immersion ruined by 12" weapon rangers or special characters who show up to frontier skirmishes.

It's not a complicated issue. There are people who like tanks, and they want them to be good, so they offer a bad faith immersion argument that, suspiciously, isn't reflected anywhere else in their gameplay preferences. I would say the tank likers roughly split in two ways; weird self-styled history buffs who think irl war stuff is badass, and people who actively want a unit with complete immunity to a certain percentage of their average opponent's army, because that's a very easy style of unit to play with.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/18 21:34:23


Post by: Leo_the_Rat


No offense, but I'm tired of hearing the complaint that "X (special character) wouldn't be appearing in this little skirmish." People tend to forget that the little skirmish that they are playing may be part of a larger battle taking place "off screen". Of course the camera will focus on the "Big Boys" so there you have it, the reason character X always seems to be at every battle.

end rant


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/18 21:57:03


Post by: AnomanderRake


 G00fySmiley wrote:
In the name of the 9th edition simplicity of rules. how would adding to category vehicle "-1 to wound"


So...fix the to-wound table, or add a special rule that has the effect of changing the to-wound table without actually changing the to-wound table?


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/18 21:57:16


Post by: Jarms48



Str more than double Toughness - No wound possible. (No more lasguns wounding tanks...)
Str double Toughness - 6+ to wound
Str less than Toughness - 5+ to wound
Str the same as toughness - 4+ to wound
Str higher than Toughness - 3+ to wound
Str double Toughness - 2+ to wound
Str more than double toughness - Auto wound (yes lascannons vaporise Guardsmen)


This just seems like a targeted nerf to GEQ’s shooting. For anything S4 or higher it changes nothing. A bolter will still wound a Knight. An Ork shoota will still wound Land Raiders.

Going from top to bottom it’s going to kill anything T5 or lower. New T5 Orks? Not a problem my demolisher auto-wounds all of them. New Sisters walkers? My railgun auto-wounds them. Terminators? Missile launcher auto-wounds.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/18 23:28:51


Post by: Gadzilla666


 Jidmah wrote:
The_Real_Chris wrote:
I would be quite happy with the toughness system changing to:-

Str more than double Toughness - No wound possible. (No more lasguns wounding tanks...)
Str double Toughness - 6+ to wound
Str less than Toughness - 5+ to wound
Str the same as toughness - 4+ to wound
Str higher than Toughness - 3+ to wound
Str double Toughness - 2+ to wound
Str more than double toughness - Auto wound (yes lascannons vaporise Guardsmen)


I'm not sure I'm too fond of S7 auto-wounding T3 or S9 outwounding T4. But outside of that, sure, why not? At least it would give extremely high strength values a purpose.

Yeah, my Contemptor auto-wounding anything T6 or lower in melee would be great, but.......this doesn't "make tanks better". It only stops lasguns from being capable of wounding tanks, and we know trying to kill a T7-8 vehicle with S3 weapons s already a waste of time. This doesn't affect true AT weapons, or the "chip damage" offenders, which are S5-7. They'll all work the same. The problem is that the best AT weapons are currently underpriced, so it's too easy to spam them. I don't like lasguns being able to wound tanks either, but no one is leaving their tanks at home because of lasguns.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/19 00:33:52


Post by: Leo_the_Rat


Maybe the answer is to change the weapon damage and add an ability. Call it "armor piercing (X)"- if this weapon wounds a model with the vehicle keyword then add X to the damge..

Then you lower the damage of weapons in general. The X could be an actual variable that changes with each weapon or it could just be a fixed amount. Make most small arms D1 heavy weapons D2 and truly destructive weapons D3. I'm just spit balling the numbers but you get the gist of my idea (I hope).


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/19 01:32:01


Post by: Luke_Prowler


 Altruizine wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Well, actually, yes, it's based on the game design philosophy that immersion is important for the players (and that "realism" or "simulation" is the purpose of wargaming, as opposed to board gaming or playing pretend).

Untrue.

The immersion argument is used incredibly selectively. For some strange, inexplicable reason Tank Gang doesn't have their immersion ruined by 12" weapon rangers or special characters who show up to frontier skirmishes.

It's not a complicated issue. There are people who like tanks, and they want them to be good, so they offer a bad faith immersion argument that, suspiciously, isn't reflected anywhere else in their gameplay preferences. I would say the tank likers roughly split in two ways; weird self-styled history buffs who think irl war stuff is badass, and people who actively want a unit with complete immunity to a certain percentage of their average opponent's army, because that's a very easy style of unit to play with.

I was actually about to bring this up myself. it's notable how much the argument of "immersion" focuses purely on mechanics that would positively effect their favored units, meanwhile things like combat speeds, vehicle damage charts, or the non-interactivity of crew and embarked units never get up. You can tell by their use of language, using "Tank" and Vehicles interchangeably or the focus on "small arms fire" even thought that includes apparently more than they let on.

The use of tank implies something much tougher, but the AV system included things like ork buggies, DE venoms, SM land speeders, Eldar war walkers, and IG scout sentinels, all of which are thinly armored vehicles with exposed crew. Similarly,sSmall arms fire is usually pointed at str 3 but seems to often include stuff like bolters, which are rapid fire .50 cal rifles that fire rocket propelled armored piercing exploisve rounds. Those would not be considered anti-infantry only weapons by any modern standards, except by sadists. Similarly, the common suggestion of -1 damage without min (which aside from the balance issue or making things like autocannons pathetic) precludes things like assault cannons and flamers. The former is high strength both in game and lore and would not be considered "small arms" by anyone, while the flamer is considered anti-infantry by people in the game. In reality, the flamethrower is one of the most terrifying anti-everything weapons used in war, because no amount of super unobtanium with quantum time weave armor is going to protect a tank if it is on ing fire and the crew inside is burning to death.

It feels like the use of realism and immersion in these arguments kind fall in the same category as when it's used in a lot of Modern Military Shooters. It's a façade of realism still built on arcade sensibilities, pushed to sell itself on a "fantasy" (as someone had put it earlier in the thread) of how people things it works. There's a lot of abstraction still being used to get a desired result (immunity or near immunity to most of the game, in this case), and I'd argue it feed into, rather than fixes, one of the actual core problems with 40k and that it's a game where the only interaction with your opponent's army is killing them.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/19 02:42:03


Post by: Canadian 5th


 Altruizine wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Well, actually, yes, it's based on the game design philosophy that immersion is important for the players (and that "realism" or "simulation" is the purpose of wargaming, as opposed to board gaming or playing pretend).

Untrue.

The immersion argument is used incredibly selectively. For some strange, inexplicable reason Tank Gang doesn't have their immersion ruined by 12" weapon rangers or special characters who show up to frontier skirmishes.

It's not a complicated issue. There are people who like tanks, and they want them to be good, so they offer a bad faith immersion argument that, suspiciously, isn't reflected anywhere else in their gameplay preferences. I would say the tank likers roughly split in two ways; weird self-styled history buffs who think irl war stuff is badass, and people who actively want a unit with complete immunity to a certain percentage of their average opponent's army, because that's a very easy style of unit to play with.

I beg to differ.

I want full fog of war, staggered reinforcements by unit type, and either tables 4 to 6 times larger or a drastic reduction in scale. Give me off-map artillery, planes that act like planes, and weapons ranges that actually make sense with harsh cover, range, and LoS penalties to show why maximum range =/= effective range. If a game of 40k starts to take an entire weekend to play and campaigns worry about supply lines and attrition you're starting to make a war game and not a glorified series of skirmishes that have suffered from scale creep.

I also want tanks to shrug off small arms, armor facings, templates, impactful morale, flanking that gives tangible bonuses and other immersive rules that 40k has ditched in favor of courting as many players as possible.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/19 04:47:37


Post by: AnomanderRake


 Luke_Prowler wrote:
 Altruizine wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Well, actually, yes, it's based on the game design philosophy that immersion is important for the players (and that "realism" or "simulation" is the purpose of wargaming, as opposed to board gaming or playing pretend).

Untrue.

The immersion argument is used incredibly selectively. For some strange, inexplicable reason Tank Gang doesn't have their immersion ruined by 12" weapon rangers or special characters who show up to frontier skirmishes.

It's not a complicated issue. There are people who like tanks, and they want them to be good, so they offer a bad faith immersion argument that, suspiciously, isn't reflected anywhere else in their gameplay preferences. I would say the tank likers roughly split in two ways; weird self-styled history buffs who think irl war stuff is badass, and people who actively want a unit with complete immunity to a certain percentage of their average opponent's army, because that's a very easy style of unit to play with.

I was actually about to bring this up myself. it's notable how much the argument of "immersion" focuses purely on mechanics that would positively effect their favored units, meanwhile things like combat speeds, vehicle damage charts, or the non-interactivity of crew and embarked units never get up. You can tell by their use of language, using "Tank" and Vehicles interchangeably or the focus on "small arms fire" even thought that includes apparently more than they let on.

The use of tank implies something much tougher, but the AV system included things like ork buggies, DE venoms, SM land speeders, Eldar war walkers, and IG scout sentinels, all of which are thinly armored vehicles with exposed crew. Similarly,sSmall arms fire is usually pointed at str 3 but seems to often include stuff like bolters, which are rapid fire .50 cal rifles that fire rocket propelled armored piercing exploisve rounds. Those would not be considered anti-infantry only weapons by any modern standards, except by sadists. Similarly, the common suggestion of -1 damage without min (which aside from the balance issue or making things like autocannons pathetic) precludes things like assault cannons and flamers. The former is high strength both in game and lore and would not be considered "small arms" by anyone, while the flamer is considered anti-infantry by people in the game. In reality, the flamethrower is one of the most terrifying anti-everything weapons used in war, because no amount of super unobtanium with quantum time weave armor is going to protect a tank if it is on ing fire and the crew inside is burning to death.

It feels like the use of realism and immersion in these arguments kind fall in the same category as when it's used in a lot of Modern Military Shooters. It's a façade of realism still built on arcade sensibilities, pushed to sell itself on a "fantasy" (as someone had put it earlier in the thread) of how people things it works. There's a lot of abstraction still being used to get a desired result (immunity or near immunity to most of the game, in this case), and I'd argue it feed into, rather than fixes, one of the actual core problems with 40k and that it's a game where the only interaction with your opponent's army is killing them.


Immersion is not about realism. It isn't about the things that would actually happen if we put all these things together in the real world, it's about the game being consistent with a given player's subjective sense of "that doesn't make sense!". It makes perfect sense to you that .50-cal rocket-propelled grenade launchers are viable AT, sure. It makes no sense to me that in a universe where there are whole armies of people running around with .50-cal rocket-propelled grenade launchers as their sidearms nobody in the entire setting has gotten it in their heads that maybe developing armour that's impervious to .50-cal rocket-propelled grenade launchers might be a good idea. The problem isn't that any specific weapon with specific fluff is an efficient anti-tank weapon, the problem is that the lore tells me "this is an anti-tank gun" and "this is not an anti-tank gun" and then makes the non-anti-tank gun just as effective against tanks as the anti-tank gun, thereby rendering the anti-tank gun pointless. (I know GW's buffed actual AT a lot in 9th, but they haven't buffed tanks at all, so we've ended up with an awful attempt to please everyone by making the non-AT gun good at killing tanks, the AT gun *really* good at killing tanks, and leaving the tanks (="vehicles", ="monsters", whatever term you prefer for the T7/3+ to T8/2+ statline) feeling incredibly squishy.) If you think that's fine and tanks feel great to you that's great! Have fun! But don't tell me that my sense of verisimilitude isn't "real" or "doesn't make sense" because it doesn't line up with yours.

"-1 damage with no minimum" is an awful solution to the problem, yes, but the actual problem comes from GW's inability to do math when writing the 8e Indexes. If you wanted to fix the problem you'd have to re-stat almost the entire game. People shouting about things they think are wrong on Dakka are very averse to actually sitting down and doing the legwork to fix it, so they come up with a one-sentence patch that sort of addresses the problem but creates a whole bunch of new problems and hold that up as "if GW just implemented my simple solution everything would be fine!". We've seen it with "alternating activations!" (with no more detail on how to implement it, usually), "change to d10s!" (with no concept of whether they'd actually change the dice math, or just map old stats 1:1 to new stats and create the exact same game with different dice), and a host of other "fast fixes" over the years, this is no different. It isn't a serious proposal.

TL;DR: I disagree with your claim that there isn't a problem or that vehicle fans are arguing in bad faith, but I agree with you that their proposed solution is silly.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/19 08:54:44


Post by: Jidmah


 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
The_Real_Chris wrote:
I would be quite happy with the toughness system changing to:-

Str more than double Toughness - No wound possible. (No more lasguns wounding tanks...)
Str double Toughness - 6+ to wound
Str less than Toughness - 5+ to wound
Str the same as toughness - 4+ to wound
Str higher than Toughness - 3+ to wound
Str double Toughness - 2+ to wound
Str more than double toughness - Auto wound (yes lascannons vaporise Guardsmen)


I'm not sure I'm too fond of S7 auto-wounding T3 or S9 outwounding T4. But outside of that, sure, why not? At least it would give extremely high strength values a purpose.

Yeah, my Contemptor auto-wounding anything T6 or lower in melee would be great, but.......this doesn't "make tanks better". It only stops lasguns from being capable of wounding tanks, and we know trying to kill a T7-8 vehicle with S3 weapons s already a waste of time. This doesn't affect true AT weapons, or the "chip damage" offenders, which are S5-7. They'll all work the same. The problem is that the best AT weapons are currently underpriced, so it's too easy to spam them. I don't like lasguns being able to wound tanks either, but no one is leaving their tanks at home because of lasguns.


Yeah, I think this is absolutely true. Tanks aren't dying to small arms fire at all, this mostly just a narrative driven by people who aren't even playing 9th.

What is killing tanks are high volumes of 2 damage shots, high damage weapons spammed on cheap platforms. Multimeltas mounted on blighthaulers, gladiator tanks or helbrutes are causing exactly zero problems because you are paying over 100+ points for them on a platform that you'd rather not throw away for a single round of shooting.
To enable low strength, low AP, low damage attacks to kill tanks they either need to get buffeded with +1 to wound (effectively no longer making them "small arms") and multiplied with other buffs like Endless Cacophony, or they need to be able to do mortal wounds in addition to their normal damage.

IMO the way to fix tanks is buff their wound count across the board to make the "spam 2 damage" option less appealing, but not worthless. Four plasma gunners should be able to damage a LRBT, but not melt it.
The other thing is that anti-tank weapons on cheap platforms need to become much more expensive. As long as unit like attack bikes or erradicators can wipe out a tank without as much as breaking a sweat from a safe distance, tanks will struggle.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/19 09:23:02


Post by: Blackie


Yeah, do you want better tanks? Nerf anti tank weapons by increasing some points costs and removing combos to enhance them.

Also nerf to the ground those heavy infantries that compete with tanks. Because 3 dudes with T5 3W and 3+ save are more durable than a tank, and they shouldn't be. 60ppm eradicators without double tap ability would make SM tanks look better .


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/19 10:51:59


Post by: BrianDavion


 Blackie wrote:
Yeah, do you want better tanks? Nerf anti tank weapons by increasing some points costs and removing combos to enhance them.

Also nerf to the ground those heavy infantries that compete with tanks. Because 3 dudes with T5 3W and 3+ save are more durable than a tank, and they shouldn't be. 60ppm eradicators without double tap ability would make SM tanks look better .


you've hit the nail on the head without meaning to. the PROBLEM isn't so much elite infantry, the problem is that eltie infantry and tanks can effectively be countered by the same type of weapon. if tanks required you to bring 3+ damage weapons just to impact them (one could acheive this simply by having every tank reduce the damage taken by 2 to a minimum of zero, meaning you need 3 damage weapons to even scratch a tank) and suddenly you shift things, and no longer is an anti-heavy weapon infantry occupying the same niche as an anti-tank gun.

THAT is the fundamental problem with tanks.

it's not las canons and multi meltas that are the issue (those in sufficant numbers SHOULD kill tanks for the same reason boltguns in sufficant numbers should kill guardsmen) but rather that I can pack the same tools to deal with a tactical marine as I can a tank.

GW really needs to address the granualarity here, ESPECIALLY when there is a pretty minimal differance between a light tank and a heavy tank.

case in point, there's only 5 wounds and 1 toughness differance between a landraider and a predator.


How to make tanks better @ 2021/06/19 10:59:52


Post by: Blndmage


What about a rule for vehicles where all attacks must reroll any successful wound rolls?

Like, it's a big hit, and makes fishing for 6s not really work, but high S (traditionally anti tank) weapons wouldn't need to worry much.