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

Voss wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Maybe we can bring back Parry rolls as well

Ugh. I know you're poking fun, but this thread keeps reminding me of the nightmare of resolving 2nd edition combat, one pair of combatants at a time.

It was a pain. But it also made it more likely for some single, high-skill models to take on a crowd. A Banshee taking out 3-4 Marines by herself, for example. Fun rolls counting up fumbles, criticals and parries

 Gnarlly wrote:

 Mezmorki wrote:
You all are funny. You recognize the issues caused by GW over simplifying the core rules and then wanting to add a bunch more to make up for it (thus making it more complex again). Classic 40K handled this all nice in a single die roll (WS vs WS) with initiative dictating attack order. If it ain't broke don't fix it.

Reminds me of another great irony. People loved to beat on 2nd edition because it had all these time consuming modifiers and re-rolls and special action cards all over the place that bogged the game down, made batch rolling hard, etc. 9th edition is right back there, what with die roll modifiers sprinkled all over the place like glitter at a my little pony convention. Not to mention the re-rolls and special action cards (ahem stratagems) bogging it all down again.

What the point of a streamlined rule set if you have to even more rule bloat on top of it to make up for an overly simple core?

+1, from someone that played back during 2nd edition and on and off through 8th and has been keeping up with 9th. Somewhere between 3rd and 5th is the better median in my opinion.

Seconded. Imo 4th was peak.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hellebore wrote:
IMO they could fix a lot of issues with the game regarding fast light units and relative power if they did the following:

Reintroduce Initiative.

Make WS and BS comparative rolls AGAINST Initiative.

you don't need Initiative to determine who strikes first if it reflects the unit's speed by how EASILY it can be hit.


You collapse all the complexity of speed, agility and striking into a single stat and comparison mechanic.


It also gives you the opportunity to reduce the lethality of the game based on difficulty to hit.

It also means modifiers can be to WS and BS, rather than to the dice roll (which has very little movement in it).



you do this and you solve a lot of design space issues in the game.

BS 4 marine vs I4 eldar - 4+ to hit.

BS 8 vs I4 2+ to hit.

WS7 Phoenix lord vs I5 marine, 3+ to hit.
WS 6 marine captain vs I8 Solitaire, 5+ to hit.

You very easily create that 'speed is defence' aspect of the game, without having to create special rules to reflect it.

Interesting.

That would go some distance to dealing with something that always kinda bugged me, which is that Vehicles aren't harder to hit than infantry. Like, are you really going to miss a Monolith? The counterpoint to that is that taking out such a vehicle requires hitting weak points, and those could still be hard to hit, but opening up a stat that modifies defense could provide for some interesting opportunities.

Pretty sure Kharandras was better in 2nd, and he's not advocating for that.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Pretty sure Kharandras was better in 2nd, and he's not advocating for that.

An elf was almost always WS5+ AND I5+ meaning they'd always go first and hit the most.

Heaven forbid non-Space Marines be good at something?

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Pretty sure Kharandras was better in 2nd, and he's not advocating for that.

An elf was almost always WS5+ AND I5+ meaning they'd always go first and hit the most.

Heaven forbid non-Space Marines be good at something?

You mean a boost to Eldar and none other? Orks gained a ton from the change now that they weren't always swinging last against everything and often given often weak WS scores, Tyranids don't have to suffer the issues of their better assault units not having assault grenades and thus being penalized by cover. Which of course Imperium and Eldar had in Spades. Not to mention how GW always felt that "Big Monsters need WS3!"

Notice how everyone's discussing how much this system benefits Eldar units, but forgets that there's other xenos melee units in the game.

It benefitted Genestealers, Lictors, Tyrants, Slaneesh daemons, Dark Eldar, occasionally Ork Nobs on the charge when they doubled their initiative. . . It was just another way to meaningfully diversify models.

Not to mention Daedelus gives incorrect "elf" stats, Aspect Warriors were all WS4, not 5, for example.

Plus, Orks with their natively lower Initiative actually hit harder to compensate. It's almost like things can be rebalanced if required.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Eldar players have always been as bad and entitled as the so called typical Marine player. Only difference is the number of models released.

I've never played Eldar.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Argive wrote:
I dunno. I remember my hive tyrant wrecking face...

Yeah, unless there was a small shrubbery at the feet of your charge target, then even tau fire warriors were given a shot to hit the pinnacle of evolution before it was allowed to kill them.

Friendly reminder that adopting one past rule does not mean you have to adopt ALL past rules. . .

 aphyon wrote:

Insectum7 wrote:

That would go some distance to dealing with something that always kinda bugged me, which is that Vehicles aren't harder to hit than infantry. Like, are you really going to miss a Monolith? The counterpoint to that is that taking out such a vehicle requires hitting weak points, and those could still be hard to hit, but opening up a stat that modifies defense could provide for some interesting opportunities.

They already had that fixed in 4th. If you remember vehicles didn't have a CC attack(except for the 30K mechanicus land raider/explorator that had a combat claw, and tau flechette launchers) but they could try to run people over with tank shock (it became really good and thematic with the old 3.5 chaos vehicle upgrades-remember when all those saw blades on a khorne rhino did something?). the vehicle owner had to trade off more accurate shooting for being harder to hit in close combat. going from being hit automatically for not moving to a 4+/6+ the faster they went. they also introduced ramming so they could effectively CC attack another vehicle in the movement phase (very useful if you had all your guns blown off). you also only hit the armor you were facing requiring tactical maneuvering (not the BS Jervis Johnson came up with in 5th- hitting on 3+ always against rear armor-.because in his words "you deserve it" if you get into CC with a vehicle-you don't deserve **** in a tactical war game-you earn it by being the better general)

Thats why our group still uses those rules in our hybrid 5th ed games- they were a good tactical and immersive element in the game.

I meant in regards to shooting, actually. This was in regards to Initiative being used for evasion in CC and Shooting.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
It benefitted Genestealers, Lictors, Tyrants, Slaneesh daemons, Dark Eldar, occasionally Ork Nobs on the charge when they doubled their initiative. . .

How far back in time do I need to go to have nobz double their initiative on the charge?
The best they could do ever since I started was I4, assuming they were charging, not wielding a PK or charging into terrain.
Which meant that for many armies that their dedicated shooting units were allowed to kill a bunch of expensive melee experts before they could strike.

3rd -4th era. Some 5th maybe.

Orks were not expensive. Nob sergeants in a Boyz mob could fight first with Initiative 6, then Boyz would fight at I4, simultaneously with Marines. This required a Mob check, which was something like testing agains the unit size on 2d6.

Plus, Orks with their natively lower Initiative actually hit harder to compensate. It's almost like things can be rebalanced if required.

They hit harder?At S3 without AP?

Back then they actually HAD a form of AP. Choppas reduced saves to 4+, even Terminators. Slugga boys had 4 attacks each on the charge. So a good charge with 10 boyz would average 3.33 marine kills simultaneously as the Marines fought back. If the Nob was in there he could use a Choppa, but more likely he had a Power Claw, which forced him to fight last, but he'd get 5 attacks for 2 kills by himself. The marines wouldn't kill the Nob, since the Ork player could just take boyz for casualties. But that'd be 5 Marines killed by 10 Orks, and the Marines (say, 10 man squad) would only average 2 dead Orks in return.

I don't know how the same 10 Orks would fare today, but I think "not as well" is the place we're in now, considering the same 10 marines average about 6 Ork kills. . . Oh and Intercessors for 8.5

^Mmmhmm, and this is one of those magical paradigms where the opposing unit is always in cover and there's no chaff to pin them down and there are no second rounds of combat and "all Nobs are on bikes" (wtf) and DE Wyches were "always inside vehicles" (wtf), etc etc etc.

Also: Here's another friendly reminder (as already mentioned above) that ALL the rules from previous paradigms don't have to be brought along even if SOME of the rules are reexamined for reinstatement.

 Mezmorki wrote:
I'm failing to understand what the problem with cover and assaulting was in prior editions?

Cover and Grenades negated initiative, basically. An I6 unit charging an I4 in cover still fought last because cover made them strike at I1. Frag Grenades were used by the attacker when assaulting into cover to give them I10.

Which imo was an alright mechanic, but it could probably be made better by being just a +/- modifier or having some other effect instead. I saw it as defenders being in cover working like an implicit Overwatch, and attacking with Frag Grenades nullified the Overwatch.

The issue most folks seem to have is that sometimes your attacking troops without grenades (Genestealers, for example) lost their advantage of having a high Initiative. I'm on the fence about it, personally. But I think a better system would allow a supporting unit to suppress the defenders in the firing phase, and then charging units wouldn't need grenades. You know, Devilgaunts firing at a unit of Marines keeping them from being able to mount a solid defense againat the assaulting Stealers, as an example. The advantage of Frags in this example could still allow units to Assault effectively without requiring another unit to provide supporting fire. So, Stealers could get their I6, and Marines could still attack into cover without suffering penalties.

^Challenges sucked. Agreed.

I wouldn't say CC was set up to fail though, there were plenty of units that were monsters in CC without grenades, etc.

I think it can't be stated enough that most of the problems of 6-7th were codex problems rather than core-rules problems. I thought the foundation was decent, with some minor quibbles.

Apple fox wrote:
Having units that work does not really make it a successful system for it.
The same way that designing a game to make close combat happen, is not the same as a game that close combat can happen.
For most army’s it was just, can I ignore this. Or can I survive it, and if not. Bad unit :(

Edit, since I think they could have done something good with those systems. They just didn’t.

Ehhh, some qualifiers are gonna be needed there. Like are we talking about 3,4,5,6 or 7th? How much terrain were you using? What units are we talking about and what buffs are you loading them with? Like, systems can break just because certain units or abilities are on the table. I think the height was 4th ed, personally, for various reasons. There was a limit to how much you could buff units, Overwatch didn't exist, charges were a predictable 6", area terrain blocked LOS providing more cover for assaulting units, there were fewer fancy/big shooting weapons on the table, etc.

 Mezmorki wrote:
FWIW in ProHammer we have it that units attack in initiative order. And charging units that have to cross through cover strike at initiative 1, unless they (or another charging unit) have assault Grenades, in which everyone strikes in initiative order again.

It makes cover matter and is logical IMHO. Sure, some units don't have assault grenades or the equivalent, but most units that need them have them, or have enough mobility to move around cover.

I'm wondering if there should be a purpose to Frag Grenades even if the defenders are not in cover?

Also, having Frag only bring things back to Initiative feels counter to the idea of using grenades to storm a room/building. I'm wondering if a +1 to I would be better?

 aphyon wrote:

Also no space marine chapter had access to power lances other than white scars. there were power weapons, axes hammers fists etc...

In 6th edition Space Marines paid points for a generic Power Weapon, the form of which could be Sword, Axe, Maul or Lance. 7th miiight have been the same.

the_scotsman wrote:
good lord were the missions in fifth ever just an exercise in miserable pointlessness, how can anyone ever want to go back to the dreaded "Oops, rolled a 2, guess we're just not playing with a mission this time round and we're just killing each other" or the old classic "Emperor's Tie."

And the terrible Annihilation mission, where you just counted up units destroyed for VPs regardless of the units worth? Heaven forbid you use an army that relies lots of small units . . . so dumb.

 Charistoph wrote:

aphyon wrote:

Land Raider Redeemer was the biggest culperate, I believe. You couldn't use both Templates on the same target unless they were really spread wide and the Machine Spirit couldn't fire them.

Only if you mount them in the back, nobody ever did. the diagram for the vehicle firing arcs allows you to crossover the firing arc of the sponson weapons allowing both flamer templates to hit targets in front.

Nope, mounted in the forward position. If a unit was gathered up in front or in a conga line, one could not get both Templates on a target unit because it would require either not placing the narrow end at the Flamer or over the hull of the Land Raider.

Models didn't hit themselves with template weapons, otherwise tanks like the Immolator wouldn't be able to fire. You only needed LOS, of which the Land Raider could usually manage because the front of the tank was sloped. You could definitely hit the same model in front of a Redeemer.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Spoiler:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

aphyon wrote:

Land Raider Redeemer was the biggest culperate, I believe. You couldn't use both Templates on the same target unless they were really spread wide and the Machine Spirit couldn't fire them.

Only if you mount them in the back, nobody ever did. the diagram for the vehicle firing arcs allows you to crossover the firing arc of the sponson weapons allowing both flamer templates to hit targets in front.

Nope, mounted in the forward position. If a unit was gathered up in front or in a conga line, one could not get both Templates on a target unit because it would require either not placing the narrow end at the Flamer or over the hull of the Land Raider.

Models didn't hit themselves with template weapons, otherwise tanks like the Immolator wouldn't be able to fire. You only needed LOS, of which the Land Raider could usually manage because the front of the tank was sloped. You could definitely hit the same model in front of a Redeemer.

That's not how I remember it from 5th through 7th. While I no longer have my copy of 5th Ed, my copies of 6th and 7th Ed both state that LOS on Vehicle Weapons is performed by the barrel of the individual barrel. And the only way to do that is if the Template is going over the Vehicle's hull in the case of one of the sponsons. This is an illegal act.

That's how I remember it - the template came from the gun, and in most cases for the Redeemer, that prevented both guns from hitting the same target.

The template from the weapon was explicitly permitted to touch/cover the model firing it, otherwise Immolators and such could not fire their flame weapons.

Also it's sorta moot because:


These are Redeemer sponsons double-hitting a model on a 25mm base, the smallest available, and still not passing over the tank.

 Jidmah wrote:

Lasguns cannot kill a titan, period.

A Titan could be pretty easily downed by Lasguns if it only had a wound or two remaining.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
A Titan could be pretty easily downed by Lasguns if it only had a wound or two remaining.

I would assume a titan with only two wounds remaining has parts of its interior exposed. On a similar note, a LRBT that was hit by two multi-meltas probably has some weak points in its front armor.

Which brings me to my original point - how immersive either system is mainly depends on whether you want to immerse yourself.

Ehh. . . When my S4 anti-infantry Devilgaunts are mathematically incentivised to shoot at vehicles over infantry, as such happens if I'm fighting Custodes, it's a bad look.

 Jidmah wrote:

Unless you provide a source showing that a lasgun can't ever damage a titan (which is a tripple-moved goalpoast already) in any way under no circumstances, you are just expressing an unfounded opinion which I am free to call worthless and irrelevant to the question what is immersive and what is not.

1st through 7th edition. Lol.

Also RL, where spray and pray against MBTs is a waste of ammunition.

To add something of actual value, a quote from Forge of Mars:

Despise infantry if you must. Crush them underfoot, by all means. But do not ignore them. Battlefields are littered with the wreckage of Titans whose crews ignored infantry.

Prove that they're talking about Lasguns.

Infantry can be a big threat to heavy vehicles, sure. With weapons other than their battle rifles.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Insectum7 wrote:The template from the weapon was explicitly permitted to touch/cover the model firing it, otherwise Immolators and such could not fire their flame weapons.

Which in itself is kinda non-immersive from that standpoint, as, if the gun is literally sticking into the side of the tank, it really shouldn't be able to fire through it's own hull.

It's not firing through it's own hull if it has LOS, which I said was required.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Insectum7 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
A Titan could be pretty easily downed by Lasguns if it only had a wound or two remaining.

I would assume a titan with only two wounds remaining has parts of its interior exposed. On a similar note, a LRBT that was hit by two multi-meltas probably has some weak points in its front armor.

Which brings me to my original point - how immersive either system is mainly depends on whether you want to immerse yourself.

Ehh. . . When my S4 anti-infantry Devilgaunts are mathematically incentivised to shoot at vehicles over infantry, as such happens if I'm fighting Custodes, it's a bad look.

In much the same way as it was mechanically de-incentivised for heroes to get into combat with a lowly squad sergeant who could Instant Death them? Or spamming mid-strength high-ROF weapons to take out tanks better than actual anti-tank weapons? Neither of which I'd call immersive.

Friendly reminder that reinstating SOME rules from an earlier edition does not necessitate reinstating ALL rules from a prior edition.

Also the mid-strength, high ROF weapons being an issue is arguably a larger problem in this edition, since weapons like the Heavy Bolter couldn't scratch AV 12.

 Jidmah wrote:
Why? As far as I can tell only two FW anti-grav vehicles don't have 2+ armor, T8 or both.

Yeah, and those are the ones that I shoot at. The units to deal with in the army are occupying a weird mathematical space where they jump from being half-as-easy-to-damage, to equal-to-damage, to twice-as-easy-to-damage all around T 7-8 and save 3+to2+. The current wound system creates very goofy relationships and strange bracketing. The easiest thing to do would to just go back to the old wounding chart. You'd kill the damage "loopholes" and prevent small arms from hurting the tough stuff.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

Insectum7 wrote:The template from the weapon was explicitly permitted to touch/cover the model firing it, otherwise Immolators and such could not fire their flame weapons.

Actually they were not allowed to cover a friendly model. A model is always friendly to itself. The Template is used from the base of the model as mentioned before by others.

Find the relevant passage for vehicles.

 Charistoph wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Insectum7 wrote:The template from the weapon was explicitly permitted to touch/cover the model firing it, otherwise Immolators and such could not fire their flame weapons.

Actually they were not allowed to cover a friendly model. A model is always friendly to itself. The Template is used from the base of the model as mentioned before by others.

Find the relevant passage for vehicles.

I did for 6th and 7th, and already mentioned I no longer have my 5th. As stated, LoS is from the Barrel, and the Template is used from the base of the model. No special permission is allowed to place the Template on the Vehicle in 6th or 7th. In fact, Template rules and Vehicle Shooting rules make no mention of each other.

Vehicles don't have bases, and LOS for vehicles is drawn from the weapon. The relevant passage is "a model never hits itself" under the template weapon rules. Otherwise an Immolator would not be able to fire without potentially damaging itself.

 Charistoph wrote:

Spoiler:

Karol wrote:

Considering how much is unarmored, that is a little extravagant to say. Each exposed piece would have to be sufficiently invulnerable to the attack that it could not be warped when hit. A lot of helicopters were downed because their exposed sensitive mechanics were hit by small arms fire.

A Land Raider or a termintor does not have un armoured parts. Comparing them to helicopter is like comparing a bucket to a 6x6x6 steel block.

Read the paragraph after what you quoted for context.

Insectum7 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Insectum7 wrote:The template from the weapon was explicitly permitted to touch/cover the model firing it, otherwise Immolators and such could not fire their flame weapons.

Actually they were not allowed to cover a friendly model. A model is always friendly to itself. The Template is used from the base of the model as mentioned before by others.

Find the relevant passage for vehicles.

I did for 6th and 7th, and already mentioned I no longer have my 5th. As stated, LoS is from the Barrel, and the Template is used from the base of the model. No special permission is allowed to place the Template on the Vehicle in 6th or 7th. In fact, Template rules and Vehicle Shooting rules make no mention of each other.

Vehicles don't have bases, and LOS for vehicles is drawn from the weapon. The relevant passage is "a model never hits itself" under the template weapon rules. Otherwise an Immolator would not be able to fire without potentially damaging itself.

Some Vehicles do have bases, actually. And where they don't have bases, you use the hull.

Are you saying that I drawtge template from the hull of the LR rather than the weapon? Gonna need a source.

However, the Line of Sight issue still applies, and it would require literally shooting through the hull in order to hit with both, which means it is out of Line of Sight, unlike the Baal Predator which would be shooting DOWN the hull to hit.

I've been saying since the beginning that LOS is required. Your point doesn't change any of my assertions.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Insectum7 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

Unless you provide a source showing that a lasgun can't ever damage a titan (which is a tripple-moved goalpoast already) in any way under no circumstances, you are just expressing an unfounded opinion which I am free to call worthless and irrelevant to the question what is immersive and what is not.

1st through 7th edition. Lol.

That has just as much weight as saying that there's sources that a lasgun *can* damage a titan - being 8th and 9th.
Seeing as this discussion is about how neither system of game mechanics are exactly "accurate" to "immersion", should they not be discounted from "evidence"?

It was mostly a joke. But if we're going to commit to taking it seriously then I'd say that precedent has a place in consideration. The precedent in this case has set expectations about how the fictional universe operates.

Also RL, where spray and pray against MBTs is a waste of ammunition.

I'd say that fishing for 6s on lasguns to kill a Titan is also a waste of ammunition.

At the moment we have the situation where a squad of GEQ firing Lasguns at a Leman Russ achieves the same average output that firing a dedicated AT weapon Krak Missile does.

10 Lasguns, RFing: 20 x .5 x .17 x .333 = .5661
1 Krak Missile: .5 x .5 x .666 x 3.5 = .58

So rather than "wasting ammunition" you're actually getting the same result. This encourages behavior that is the opposite of how units actually deal with armored threats in RL. If you can find examples in RL of trained infantry blazing away at heavy armor with their rifles with the expectation of damage, I'm all ears/eyes.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
LOS from the gun, or the model?

The gun, as I've acknowledged since the beginning.


Ignoring the rest of the post.

 Mezmorki wrote:

 jeff white wrote:

All the arguments about lasguns hurting Titans/superheavies conveniently leave out the number of shots required to do even one wound to something with dozens of wounds on its profile. There's a certain amount of abstraction in any system but I really don't think requiring hundreds of small arms shots to kill a tank is a bad price to pay to ditch the old facing system that caused endless arguments.

I got a clue for you, it wasn’t the facing system that caused those arguments...

With so much of GW's rule development, they end up throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Vehicle facing is a solid idea and it added depth and decisions to the game. But it was also imprecisely written and worded. It could easily be fixed - but instead of fixing it they just threw the whole notion out the window.

Totally.

I liked the old Epic system where facing just gave a modifier to save, iirc. And it could be easily integrated with the new paradigm. Just do something like -1 Toughness from the side arc, and -2 Toughness from the rear arc. Pump the default toughness of vehicles up by +1 (so a Land Raider is T9), Then change the damn wound table back to what it used to be. That's my 30 second starting bid.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

terror51247 wrote:
Lasguns couldnt hurt stuff like stormsurges either as far i remember. They could hurt anything with toughness 7 or higher. If you ask me T6 or higher should be immune to lasguns.
When i played 8th edition i saw knights and tanks being killed by flamers and bolters. That was a big immersion killer.

Yes, because losing a couple of wounds here and there to small arms is much more immersion breaking . . . .

It's not the vehicle taking wounds, it's the decision making of the troops who are spraying their small arms at heavy vehicles that's immersion breaking. It shouldn't be a thing.

 techsoldaten wrote:
Might help this thread if people arguing about immunity to small arms fire would identify whether or not they ever served in the military.

I have a feeling the disconnect owes to whether or not someone has seen what an automatic weapon does to armor IRL. Which is absolutely nothing.

+1

Not that I've served, mind you, but I've done some research and I prefer data over Rambo movies.

 alextroy wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

terror51247 wrote:
Lasguns couldnt hurt stuff like stormsurges either as far i remember. They could hurt anything with toughness 7 or higher. If you ask me T6 or higher should be immune to lasguns.
When i played 8th edition i saw knights and tanks being killed by flamers and bolters. That was a big immersion killer.

Yes, because losing a couple of wounds here and there to small arms is much more immersion breaking . . . .

It's not the vehicle taking wounds, it's the decision making of the troops who are spraying their small arms at heavy vehicles that's immersion breaking. It shouldn't be a thing.

Are you saying that nobody in real life fires small arms at weapons despite have a nearly 0% chance of doing anything relevant? I'm asking because this seems to happen in every movie involving tanks I've ever seen.

Methinks that's your problem.

Also, what I've seen in the more "realistic" depictions in movies is that troops will overwatch vehicles waiting for guys to pop out of them . . . AFTER hitting them with same actual AT capable weapon.

the_scotsman wrote:

 jeff white wrote:

Karol wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
No it's not, you're wrong.

See how that works when you aren't providing any arguments?

Does he need to? Is it required to write a 2 paragraph disertation that eating glass is not good idea. A lascgun should never be able to hurt a vehicle like a knight, Land raider or a titan.

Eating glass... lol.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

the_scotsman wrote:

Karol wrote:
No, there are things you do not have to prove. You don't need to make arguments why breathing is okey for you.

And lasguns should not be able to hurt tanks or termintors lore wise.

heheheheehehehehehehe I see what you did there lol.

"Lasguns should not be able to hurt tanks....also incidentally my ENTIRE fething ARMY should just happen to be immune to the baseline guns and melee of multiple factions im making such a good common sense argument look at me."

How many M16s does it take to kill an M1 Abrams tank? More than 50? More than 50 for how long? I got common sense all day long... I bet it takes your rifles longer than that.

This is a game about putting your little plastic models down on a tabletop and playing a game with someone else's little plastic models. "The Lore" is bs, made up to sell little plastic models.

I'm going to explain this real slow because apparently it's a toughie

If you make a game

and the basic unit of one particular army

has NO WAY AT ALL to interact with the basic unit of another army

you've probably made yourself a bad game.

The only time that's been the case is with Knights, as the basic unit of every other army is just some infantry model and perfectly shootable with basic weapons.

In which case that's not a bad game, as the problem only exists because of one faction out of 20.

I'd just call that a poor implementation of Knights. . . Which it was.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

panzerfront14 wrote:
To make a point regarding the effect of small arms on tanks, it depends on several factors, the armor of the tank in question, what the intent is. Tanks often have hatches open and crew looking around, the tank commander in particular so they have better situational awareness. Yes no amount of .556 fire will penetrate the armor of even a T-55 tank which is a rather weak tank on modern battlefields. Yet fire can and will strip off outer equipment from the tank. If a bullet impacts one of our periscopes and disables it, then yes the tank was "hurt" by a weapon completely incapable of penetrating its armor, though it will continue to function.

Now in the event the armor suffers major damage, such as the damage a Melta weapon would inflict, then yes the big gapping hole in the armor could be targeted by small arms and in all likelihood the crew would be slaughtered in the cramped confines of the tank, with bullets ricocheting inside the tank and turning them into slurry. This of course assumes the intervention of a true AT gun.

Its also why I think the true AT guns of 40k should be very much capable of 1 shoting tanks. Should one of my battlewagons get targeted by a Leman Russ Vanquisher or a Tau Railgun, I should suffer a catastrophic ammunition detonation or something to that effect from those weapons. Thats the trade off of anti infantry weapons being completely useless, if that is what you're going for, then AT guns should be absolutely devastating, as opposed to spamming plasma guns which i commonly see used over most AT weaponry.

You basically just described 1st through 4th edition, where dedicated AT weapons would regularly one-shot or cripple vehicles with a solid penetrating hit.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Spoiler:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

panzerfront14 wrote:
To make a point regarding the effect of small arms on tanks, it depends on several factors, the armor of the tank in question, what the intent is. Tanks often have hatches open and crew looking around, the tank commander in particular so they have better situational awareness. Yes no amount of .556 fire will penetrate the armor of even a T-55 tank which is a rather weak tank on modern battlefields. Yet fire can and will strip off outer equipment from the tank. If a bullet impacts one of our periscopes and disables it, then yes the tank was "hurt" by a weapon completely incapable of penetrating its armor, though it will continue to function.

Now in the event the armor suffers major damage, such as the damage a Melta weapon would inflict, then yes the big gapping hole in the armor could be targeted by small arms and in all likelihood the crew would be slaughtered in the cramped confines of the tank, with bullets ricocheting inside the tank and turning them into slurry. This of course assumes the intervention of a true AT gun.

Its also why I think the true AT guns of 40k should be very much capable of 1 shoting tanks. Should one of my battlewagons get targeted by a Leman Russ Vanquisher or a Tau Railgun, I should suffer a catastrophic ammunition detonation or something to that effect from those weapons. Thats the trade off of anti infantry weapons being completely useless, if that is what you're going for, then AT guns should be absolutely devastating, as opposed to spamming plasma guns which i commonly see used over most AT weaponry.

You basically just described 1st through 4th edition, where dedicated AT weapons would regularly one-shot or cripple vehicles with a solid penetrating hit.

You mean the same editions where a Lascannon couldn't kill a Carnifex in one hit? You're really just picking and choosing what's immersion breaking.

The AV mechanic is the one that I'm focussing on atm. Here's my go-to response for your type of statement now: Reinstating certain aspects of former editions does not necessitate the reinstatement of ALL aspects of former editions.

Five min in the penalty box for you.

Also, there was a tradeoff for MCs in that era, where it was more likely for them to take damage from a Lascannon, but it would require multiple hits. And being only T6, the Fex was engageable by a far greater array of weapons than something that was AV 12+.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

If there aren't infantry near the tank they're not just gonna sit there idly. If there are infantry near said tank, said anti infantry weapons are pointed at that instead of the tank. Quit picking and choosing what's immersion breaking. Either the game is immersive or it isn't.

Really Slayer? Are tgey going to empty clips of ammunition into the armor plates in the hopes of achieving something? Is that your stand on the matter?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Spoiler:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

panzerfront14 wrote:
To make a point regarding the effect of small arms on tanks, it depends on several factors, the armor of the tank in question, what the intent is. Tanks often have hatches open and crew looking around, the tank commander in particular so they have better situational awareness. Yes no amount of .556 fire will penetrate the armor of even a T-55 tank which is a rather weak tank on modern battlefields. Yet fire can and will strip off outer equipment from the tank. If a bullet impacts one of our periscopes and disables it, then yes the tank was "hurt" by a weapon completely incapable of penetrating its armor, though it will continue to function.

Now in the event the armor suffers major damage, such as the damage a Melta weapon would inflict, then yes the big gapping hole in the armor could be targeted by small arms and in all likelihood the crew would be slaughtered in the cramped confines of the tank, with bullets ricocheting inside the tank and turning them into slurry. This of course assumes the intervention of a true AT gun.

Its also why I think the true AT guns of 40k should be very much capable of 1 shoting tanks. Should one of my battlewagons get targeted by a Leman Russ Vanquisher or a Tau Railgun, I should suffer a catastrophic ammunition detonation or something to that effect from those weapons. Thats the trade off of anti infantry weapons being completely useless, if that is what you're going for, then AT guns should be absolutely devastating, as opposed to spamming plasma guns which i commonly see used over most AT weaponry.

You basically just described 1st through 4th edition, where dedicated AT weapons would regularly one-shot or cripple vehicles with a solid penetrating hit.

You mean the same editions where a Lascannon couldn't kill a Carnifex in one hit? You're really just picking and choosing what's immersion breaking.

The AV mechanic is the one that I'm focussing on atm. Here's my go-to response for your type of statement now: Reinstating certain aspects of former editions does not necessitate the reinstatement of ALL aspects of former editions.

Five min in the penalty box for you.

Also, there was a tradeoff for MCs in that era, where it was more likely for them to take damage from a Lascannon, but it would require multiple hits. And being only T6, the Fex was engageable by a far greater array of weapons than something that was AV 12+.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

If there aren't infantry near the tank they're not just gonna sit there idly. If there are infantry near said tank, said anti infantry weapons are pointed at that instead of the tank. Quit picking and choosing what's immersion breaking. Either the game is immersive or it isn't.

Really Slayer? Are tgey going to empty clips of ammunition into the armor plates in the hopes of achieving something? Is that your stand on the matter?

1. Said weapons were still unlikely to wound a Carnifex. Greater array only applies if said greater array has a chance to do anything. Quite frankly, that's already comparable to vehicles now. So good for you for making my point more valid.
Also I LOL at you trying to say there were trade offs for Monstrous Creatures not being vehicles. Seriously it's like you didn't play the game at all 3rd through 7th. Monstrous Creatures were always better.
2. If a Rocket Launcher blew off part of a vehicle why wouldn't you try to take pot shots at the innards if there's no infantry nearby? Seems logical to me, but apparently logic only works for you if it's in favor of the garbage AV system you refuse to remove your rose tinted glasses for.

1. Greater Array is still greater array. A Carnifex with T6 could be wounded by a S3 lasgun. The same Lasgun couldn't hurt ANY vehicle in the game.
@ your attempted LOL, MCs were on a tight leash in 3rd and 4th ed. The Wraithlord was the toughest one you'd commonly see, it only had three wounds and a Lascannon wounded it on a 3+ and ignored armor. A buffed out Carnifex with T7 and a 2+ save was wounded by a Lascannon on a 2+, and didn't get an armor save. This was long before the days of Riptide MCs with 3++ etc, and the MC system worked fine.
2. Go find me a scenario in real life where whole parts of a tank were blown off and troops then engaged with rifles to shoot at internal spaces. If a tank has gotten whole chunks blown off, the tank is already out of action. Minus the scenario of opening the hatch and firing into the crew compartment (assaulting a vehicle in 40K) I'm going to suggest that your proposed scenario is not really a thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jidmah wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

To add something of actual value, a quote from Forge of Mars:

Despise infantry if you must. Crush them underfoot, by all means. But do not ignore them. Battlefields are littered with the wreckage of Titans whose crews ignored infantry.

Prove that they're talking about Lasguns.

Infantry can be a big threat to heavy vehicles, sure. With weapons other than their battle rifles.

In fact, this is the machine spirit of a titan itself talking, referring to a time when its armor was penetrated by tyranid light infantry ambushing it in a forest, resulting in its defeat.

Did the Titan say how these light infantry were a danger? Were they spraying Fleshborers at it? Were they attacking it in CC? Were they in fact Genestealers, known for their armor penetrating capability? Did they have some special equipment? Do you have any details?

Because of course I'd expect well equipped infantry to be able to hurt a Titan, but I'm thinking things like anti-tank bombs, Meltaguns, Powerfists, things of that nature. I'm not denying Infantry a chance to hurt vehicles, not at all. I just don't think they should be doing it with their standard issue battle rifle.

 Jidmah wrote:
I'd also like to point out that the goal posts have now been moved from "anti-infantry weapons shouldn't be able to destroy tanks" to "lasguns shouldn't be able to hurt titans".

I entered this conversation on this exchange.:

 Jidmah wrote:

 aphyon wrote:

But, in all honesty, how often have you seen a Titan killed by lasguns?

The fact that it is even possible is the problem.

Lasguns cannot kill a titan, period.

So Lasguns against Titans is where we're at.

 Blndmage wrote:
Real life doesn't matter!
This is a game about space monks in power armour shooting rocket bullets, sentient, sapient fungus beings that are a threat to the above rocket monks. There's a literal dimension of chaos that has Demons! Self repairing skeleton robots with pokeball star gods. Space Elves.

Current and historical military stuff is so out of its depth in ways we can't fathom. Lasguns may be, in relation to the other thing in the year 40,0000, a basic weapon, butas a comparison, look at the state of military stuff from 40,000yrs ago, image if those people saw our current tech, and that's just one planet of one race.

The Lasgun has the same stats as an Autogun, and the Autogun is the equivalent of a modern assault rifle. Also, even in this imaginary setting there are anti infantry weapons and anti tank weapons. And as has been noted before, there's a legacy of prior editions that set some precedent for expectation. There's over 20 years of legacy promoting the idea that in this fictional universe lots of weapons simply can't hurt heavy vehicles.

Heck, even in Star Wars they had armor that's "too strong for blasters!".