Switch Theme:

How to make tanks better  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Powerful Pegasus Knight





 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.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/06/11 18:08:06


 
   
Made in us
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord





In My Lab

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.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in us
Powerful Pegasus Knight





 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.
   
Made in us
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord





In My Lab

 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.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in es
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain




Vigo. Spain.

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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/11 18:11:31


 Crimson Devil wrote:

Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.

ERJAK wrote:
Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.

 
   
Made in us
The Conquerer






Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios

 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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/11 18:13:01


Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines

Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.

MURICA!!! IN SPESS!!! 
   
Made in us
Powerful Pegasus Knight





 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.
   
Made in us
Blessed Living Saint




On the Internet

 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?
   
Made in gb
Crazed Spirit of the Defiler





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...

   
Made in es
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain




Vigo. Spain.

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.

 Crimson Devil wrote:

Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.

ERJAK wrote:
Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.

 
   
Made in us
Powerful Pegasus Knight





 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.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/06/11 19:24:34


 
   
Made in us
Blessed Living Saint




On the Internet

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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/11 19:07:35


 
   
Made in es
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain




Vigo. Spain.

 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.

 Crimson Devil wrote:

Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.

ERJAK wrote:
Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.

 
   
Made in gb
Crazed Spirit of the Defiler





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

   
Made in us
Powerful Pegasus Knight





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)

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/06/11 19:58:19


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







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).
   
Made in us
Daemonic Dreadnought




The dark hollows of Kentucky

 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.
   
Made in us
Powerful Pegasus Knight





 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.
   
Made in us
Daemonic Dreadnought




The dark hollows of Kentucky

 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.
   
Made in us
Blessed Living Saint




On the Internet

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.
   
Made in nl
[DCM]
Secret Inquisitorial Eldar Xenexecutor






your mind

 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.

   
Made in us
Blessed Living Saint




On the Internet

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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/11 21:19:46


 
   
Made in us
Pyro Pilot of a Triach Stalker





 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

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/11 21:37:25


 
   
Made in us
Powerful Pegasus Knight





 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.
   
Made in us
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain






A Protoss colony world

 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!

My armies (re-counted and updated on 9/25/20, including modeled wargear options):
Dark Angels: ~16000 | Space Marines (Blood Ravens and others): ~900 | Space Wolves: ~3800
Astra Militarum: ~800 | Officio Assassinorum: ~600 | Imperial Knights: ~1300 | Sisters of Battle: ~1900
Check out my P&M Blogs: ZergSmasher's P&M Blog | Imperial Knights blog | Total models painted in 2020: 47 | Total models painted in 2021: 29 | Current main painting project: Nazgul
 Mr_Rose wrote:
Who doesn’t love crazy mutant squawk-puppies? Eh? Nobody, that’s who.
 
   
Made in us
Hurr! Ogryn Bone 'Ead!






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).
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






 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 message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/12 00:29:14


"I can't believe all these tryhard WAACs out there just care about winning all the time when it's supposed to be a game for fun!!!!!!! Also here's my 27 page essay on why marines are OP and Orkz should get a bunch of OP rules so I can win more games

-the_scotsman"

-ERJAK 
   
Made in us
Powerful Pegasus Knight





 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.




This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2021/06/12 01:49:48


 
   
Made in us
Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon





Just wondering why there is so much talk of aircraft in a tank thread?
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






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.

Earth is not flat
Vaccines work
We've been to the moon
Climate change is real
Chemtrails aren't a thing
Evolution is a fact
Orks are not a melee army
Stand up for science!
 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: