Switch Theme:

Overwhat? Overwatch! Just less of it  [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 fi
Longtime Dakkanaut






dhallnet wrote:
 Sherrypie wrote:
Infantry swarming vehicles has always been a thing. In the battles of Shanghai and Taierzhuang Chinese forces used suicide bombers with grenade and dynamite harnesses to literally throw themselves under the tracks and succeeded in halting the Japanese armour from advancing in the second Sino-Japanese war. During the Winter War, Finnish ambush troops regularily stopped and destroyed Soviet tanks by forcing firewood in their tracks and filling their engine decks with Molotov cocktails. Same with the undersupplied insurgents of the Warsow uprising. Or the desperate night battles of the Pacific with US marines etc.

It's not that taking armour out by hand is stretching any believability, it's just very dangerous. In 40k you have endless masses of troops either too dumb or fanatic to care about their lives, so it's very much the expectation that an unsupported tank will get destroyed in close assaults in short order even if it makes the enemy pay a high price in men to do so.

Infantry fighting tanks with grenades or stratagems is fine. Them hitting tanks with their fist or using their knife as can openers, isn't.
Infantry doesn't pay a high price in men if they assault a tank in 8ed since they are immune to any damage as long as they stay in contact unless the tank explode.


That's called abstraction. It matters not if the rules say "close combat weapons" or if you cannot explicitly chuck a grenade with X rules on it in combat, the dudes in the situation are using what they have. It's not that they are literally punching knives through steel plates, they are doing something akin to the many ways already described that have stopped tanks in the real world. The game doesn't care about micromanaging actions like "trooper Jenkins tries to crawl under the machine gun and shoot the commander through a cupola port", it's more about "this unit isn't equipped for tank busting, I can still sacrifice them to keep it busy" or "this unit has supadupa scifi weapons, I can expect it to punch a tank open". Details are irrelevant, even if the narrative is more obvious when a Carnifex flips a tank over.

Also, please show me when in 8th you DIDN'T take losses with infantry units that had to first cross the field and suffer repeated turns of firing from Leman Russ Punishers and what not, eat buffed up Overwatch en masse and just die from other shooting when the slightly scratched tank fell back from the intrepid handful of regular schmoes attacking it with shovels

A game of 40k is a vignette, a snapshot of thematic moments emulating real battle stories instead of simulating them.

Heavily converted tall scaled 30k / 40k loyalist Death Guard blog here, C&C welcome https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/717557.page
Now with titans! Legio Favilla walks! 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 catbarf wrote:
It takes 99 S4 hits on average to kill a Predator, or 216 S4 hits to kill a Leman Russ. How many of the people complaining about this remote possibility have actually done so in-game?

The complaint is based on the sheer possibility that a low-strength attack could hurt a tank, so switching to a D10 wouldn't fix anything- people would still complain that theoretically enough lasguns could roll 10s or whatever to kill a Predator from full health.

Except your probability with rerolls upon rerolls and bonus with +1 etc etc starts to squew the maths very heavily suddenly and far past the point of reasonable.

+1 strength as a bonus vrs +1 to wound is a very different level of bonus

Not to mention the issue of AP not differentiated between vehicals and monsters vrs infantry. Every dang Marine gets full rerolls on hits, rerolls on wounds, can have bonus AP or Mortals on 6's and avarages Ap-2.

It takes only 48 bolt rifle shots from Intercessors turn 2&3 to kill a predator with CM & LT buffs that's the real problem.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Unusual Suspect wrote:
Ice_can wrote:


Also GW saying they will be updating rules that alter overwatch, literally Tau septs full faction bonus.
However what they aren't going to say is that fixing these subfactions that are now without a trait will be done in their 9th edition codex


Where has GW said this? I don't see it on the Overwatch article.

That's what the sarcasm is about they aren't explaining how subfactions who's whole bonus is 5+ overwatch are going to be rebalanced inlight of the core rules meaning you can no longer overwatch and that 90% of the time it's still not going to be worth spending the CP.

It's why them dragging these previews out for ever is so tiresome.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/06/18 09:34:40


 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut





washington state USA

WOW...ok where to start with this fictional argument


lets do the easy one first

Get up close, jam the barrel of your gun in a vision slit and have at it,


one word-periscopes there is no direct way into the tank through a vision slit this isn't WWII(even they hard armored glass)

or jam a Krak Grenade under an armour plate, right in the squishy bits.


S6 anti-light armor weapon check already said use anti-tank to kill tank.

nfantry swarming vehicles has always been a thing. In the battles of Shanghai and Taierzhuang Chinese forces used suicide bombers with grenade and dynamite harnesses[u]


Again-NOT infantry small arms a dynamite harness is an anti-tank weapon.


Finnish ambush troops regularily stopped and destroyed Soviet tanks by forcing firewood in their tracks and filling their engine decks with Molotov cocktails.


Like the mention of japanese tanks above lets talk about what these early tanks were

the Finnish were fighting soviet t-26s
.top offroad speed-9.9 MPH, on-road 19 MPH
.crew of 3
..armor sides/front-15mm (.59 inches)/top/bottom 6mm (.24 inches)

The most common japanese tank the HA-GO was very similar in performance


So early the tanks you are using as an example were incredibly slow and armored for small arms fire protection.

The M2 .50 cal machinegun used by the US with a standard m8 API projectile used during this time will go straight through the best armor on those tanks at 500m...thats' a heavy stubber in 40K terms on TT.


Now compare that to something closer to 40K

The M113 MRV used by the austrailian military and others that the space marine predator light tank is directly modeled on.

It is an up -armored M113 with an autocannon turret.

.on-road speed -42mph
.add on and ablative armor, periscopes, advanced electronics etc...

lets just say it is a bit faster and more armored than what you are comparing it to.

go ahead and try to swarm it when it is doing something like 30mph off road and it is impervious to infantry small arms
(note machineguns removed for this static display)






That isn't even getting into the comparable armor of a MBT akin to a leman russ or land raider.

the fact that 8th ed allows you damage tanks with infantry small arms at all is purely for game mechanic balance, not anywhere close to reasonable from the standpoint of immersion.



This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2020/06/18 09:55:40


 
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

 Sherrypie wrote:
Infantry swarming vehicles has always been a thing. In the battles of Shanghai and Taierzhuang Chinese forces used suicide bombers with grenade and dynamite harnesses to literally throw themselves under the tracks and succeeded in halting the Japanese armour from advancing in the second Sino-Japanese war. During the Winter War, Finnish ambush troops regularily stopped and destroyed Soviet tanks by forcing firewood in their tracks and filling their engine decks with Molotov cocktails. Same with the undersupplied insurgents of the Warsow uprising. Or the desperate night battles of the Pacific with US marines etc.
I've bolded the important parts of this paragraph. Kind've makes our argument rather than those arguing for 6's always wound.

 Sherrypie wrote:
That's called abstraction.
Nope. You don't get to make that cop-out argument. The game has melta-bombs, krak grenades, haywire grenades and all sorts of things specifically made for close-up anit-tank work. If they weren't part of the game you could abstract that all units have similar sorts of devices for that kind of attack, but they don't. GW have specifically made this close-ranged anti-tank devices. That is their task.

You don't fix bayonets to take out a Lord of Skulls.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/06/18 10:14:49


   
Made in fi
Longtime Dakkanaut






You're missing the point.

Common soldiers with potatoes and bottles of fuel have stopped tanks in real life. Scifi soldiers with cy-potatoes and promethium canisters will stop scifi tanks in fictional settings. Neither case is optimal compared to shooting the things from afar from the viewpoint of the soldier, but when it is necessary, an ingenious mind in dire straits will find a way (like the periscope example, just climb to it and whack it with a hammer so the tank can't see - degrades to -1 BS, tadaa! Abstraction!)

The game doesn't care about every bit of rations, camping equipment or cutting torches a squad might carry and utilize in unorthodox manner often heard of in war memoirs. Neither do the tanks constantly cruise at combat speeds (especially on urban ruins, geez), terrain is more nuanced than our conveniently flat surfaces and so on. What matters is that it IS physically possible to take out vehicles without heavy guns and the rules allow for that through elusive odds. I do concur it's silly when infantry weapons like Intercessor rifles do it reliably, but hold it just as silly to say they shouldn't be able to do anything.

Heavily converted tall scaled 30k / 40k loyalist Death Guard blog here, C&C welcome https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/717557.page
Now with titans! Legio Favilla walks! 
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

 Sherrypie wrote:
Common soldiers with potatoes and bottles of fuel have stopped tanks in real life.
Again, the bolded part helps us, not you.

These are troops, using specific implements to defeat a tank (ie. spreading a fire). The game, 40K, has these implements already - meltabombs, haywire, kraks, EMP, etc. - and these are what they are used for. They are not abstracted. They are given specific rules because that is how infantry deal with armour up close - with explosives, mines and other things that set fires and case things to go boom (and, ok, EMP as well I guess).

Not with a choppa.
Not with a bayonet.
Not with a gauntleted fist (unless it's a power fist! )
Not with a laspistol.
Not even with a chainsword!

As I just said:

"If [meltabombs, et al.] weren't part of the game you could abstract that all units have similar sorts of devices for that kind of attack, but [GW] don't."

And as the point of this has been rolling dice to fish for 6's, my argument about troops unloading small arms into vehicles just doesn't happen, and saying "it's an abstraction" like that makes it suddenly ok is a terrible argument (it's a cop-out, as I said - you get to abandon all logic and reason in favour of "It happens just 'cause!").


This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/06/18 10:22:47


   
Made in de
Pestilent Plague Marine with Blight Grenade




Well, your argument might work for some of the advanced tanks in 40K, but Predators, Vindicators, Rhinos, Impulsors, Repulsors do all have sight slits.

And who's to say lasguns or handheld rapid-firing grenade launchers (Bolter) can't destroy periscopes or other alien mechanics to help a tank? They don't have to make the tank explode, but they can disable it.
I think saving private Ryan shows pretty well how CC with a tank is supposed to work in 40K. Though it's not far fetched to say an imperial Commissar might actually command their soldies to attack a tank with their bayonets, usually the CC would represent some kind of explosives/ improvised anti tank gear.
And thinking of Orks and Tyranids - they're Alien soldiers with uncomparable strength to real life, they might literally be able to tear a tank apart with their bare hands/ claws.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/18 11:36:49


 
   
Made in gb
[DCM]
Scheming Archon





Between the sacred silence and sleep.

It's important to my immersion that psychic powers shouldn't be able to damage tanks in 40K, cos I've never heard of one being able to do so historically.

Kabal of the Mon-keigh's Paw - 2500 pts

"Death is only a concern if you're both weak enough to be killed and dumb enough not to arrange your own resurrection." PM713
 
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

That's neither constructive nor helpful. Nor relevant, for that matter.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
I think saving private Ryan shows pretty well how CC with a tank is supposed to work in 40K.
They used comp-B sticky bombs. Not pistols and bayonets. They used purpose-built (however improvised) explosives. Not small arms.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Though it's not far fetched to say an imperial Commissar might actually command their soldies to attack a tank with their bayonets, usually the CC would represent some kind of explosives/ improvised anti tank gear.
No! No. A thousand times no.

The game HAS these types of explosives - Krak grenades, melta-bombs, etc. - GW actually went and included them in the game. You aren't abstracting anything because these things already exist and have rules. When you attack a tank with explosives, the unit is equipped with said explosives, because they're in the game.

If they weren't in the game, then you could justify an abstraction, but they literally have rules for this exact situation we're describing, and you're arguing in favour of abstracting it when the game already includes the things you're trying to abstract.

How can I make this clearer?


This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/06/18 10:26:53


   
Made in fi
Longtime Dakkanaut






Your argument fails on its premise, because people do shoot at hard targets. It just doesn't tend to be effective. Inexperienced guerrillas, insurgents, soldiers ordered to fight futilely commanded by idiots (not a rare occurance in real life nor this dark satire of a galaxy gone mad), frightened people with no options, trigger happy aliens and what have you. It isn't effective and the logistics department will hate you for it, but occasionally you do hit a weak spot. Heck, infantry has used rifles to shoot down airplanes when suitably lucky and motivated

Again, 40k the game is not a simulation of battle confitions. It is a game to emulate cool moments like that time trooper Jenkins did manage to use his blowtorch to breach the top hatch of that chaos land raider and shot the driver. Long shot odds of rare but plausible things to remember are a design goal for the system.

Heavily converted tall scaled 30k / 40k loyalist Death Guard blog here, C&C welcome https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/717557.page
Now with titans! Legio Favilla walks! 
   
Made in fr
Trazyn's Museum Curator





on the forum. Obviously

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
It's interesting to see that part of what motivated them to change Overwatch was the way it was a lot of dice rolling for not a lot of effect. As someone put it earlier, the way you would "fish for sixes". I would hope that GW realises that the very same thing applies to the general To Wound chart, given that everything can wound everything on a 6, and thus you can always fish for sixes.

It'd be nice if they made it so certain weapons cannot hurt tougher targets to remove this pointless dice rolling as well.

 AndrewC wrote:
And nobody has mentioned or noted that Look out Sir is back as a rule?
That's the part I saw. Very worrisome.



I bet its just a proper name for the character targeting rules. It seems they are giving mechanics actual rules now instead of baking them into other mechanics.

What I have
~4100
~1660
: LM

Westwood lives in death!
Peace through power!

A longbeard when it comes to Necrons and WHFB. Grumble Grumble

 
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
I bet its just a proper name for the character targeting rules. It seems they are giving mechanics actual rules now instead of baking them into other mechanics.
Hey, look, I'm completely willing to admit that my fears may be for nothing. I'm just concerned that GW saw some issues with untargateble characters and then did what they always do, swinging that pendulum as hard to the other side as possible, allowing all characters to be targeted.

   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Sherrypie wrote:
Your argument fails on its premise, because people do shoot at hard targets. It just doesn't tend to be effective. Inexperienced guerrillas, insurgents, soldiers ordered to fight futilely commanded by idiots (not a rare occurance in real life nor this dark satire of a galaxy gone mad), frightened people with no options, trigger happy aliens and what have you. It isn't effective and the logistics department will hate you for it, but occasionally you do hit a weak spot. Heck, infantry has used rifles to shoot down airplanes when suitably lucky and motivated

Again, 40k the game is not a simulation of battle confitions. It is a game to emulate cool moments like that time trooper Jenkins did manage to use his blowtorch to breach the top hatch of that chaos land raider and shot the driver. Long shot odds of rare but plausible things to remember are a design goal for the system.


The issue is with +1 to wound and rerolls for days being handed out and T values for Vehivals not being set high enough that rare one or two wounds can become silly reliable.

Fishing for 6's after 6's is as GW said a complete waste of both players time. However if your fishing for 5&6 and have rerolls for days that 1in 36 suddenly start hitting like 1in 6 and higher in some cases. Thats the bigger issue, they value vehicals like they are only being wounded 1 in 36+, but in reality with all the bugfs floating around in the game they die like 1 in 6 wounds succeed.
   
Made in fi
Longtime Dakkanaut






I agree. Rifles should be able to do something on the level of abstraction the system works, but not reliably kill vehicles. Reducing available buffs would be a good thing all around.

Heavily converted tall scaled 30k / 40k loyalist Death Guard blog here, C&C welcome https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/717557.page
Now with titans! Legio Favilla walks! 
   
Made in fr
Regular Dakkanaut




 Sherrypie wrote:

Also, please show me when in 8th you DIDN'T take losses with infantry units that had to first cross the field and suffer repeated turns of firing from Leman Russ Punishers and what not, eat buffed up Overwatch en masse and just die from other shooting when the slightly scratched tank fell back from the intrepid handful of regular schmoes attacking it with shovels

Ah so what you meant in your examples was that approaching a tank was deadly but once they were close, they were safe ? Ok.
Otherwise you could take a look at deepstriking and combos allowing to one turn charge across the board.

I was replying to someone explaining to me how infantry was tearing armor plates appart with their knife. This is just dumb.
But maybe we should also abstract heavy weapons and anti infantry weapons while we're at it. Just write that everyone have a lasguns equivalent in every case, it doesn't matter. Maybe then you would be nice enough to explain the abstraction were infantry stabs to death dreadnoughts, heavy grav tanks, carnifexes and wraithlords ? They build huge traps on the battlefield like the ewoks and then inflicts a million papercuts ? They use the force to disturb anti gravitation engines ? Oh yes, sorry, jsut abstract they do something else.
I think we should go further and also abstract that infantry can deal with planes. Most doesn't have equipment to deal with it on their datasheet but abstract that every unit has enough engineering skills to build a weapon with the ressources found on the field since throwing abstracted molotov cocktails might not cut it (using a scifi trebuchet against a plane seems as smart as everything else I heard this far). Seems only fair, after all having stuff impervious to other stuff is probably bad design.

Or we could go the other way and abstract that since infantry taking out tanks and alike in the middle of the battle (could prepare traps or what not before hand, but not while fighting) without the correct equipment is kind of a rare occurrence and a desperate move, it isn't possible. So we could just have infantry that can't deal with tanks and infantry that can because it has a clear reason to, like being equipped with the correct gear or having stratagems representing their creative usage of other resources...

I think I can deal with abstraction just fine, it just happens that I think that it's the mechanic (the "to wound" chart) that is an issue, not its representation and all I hear for justifying it is "you can be creative".

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/06/18 11:13:27


 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut





washington state USA

I think saving private Ryan shows pretty well how CC with a tank is supposed to work in 40K.


That was a movie with a scene made for dramatic effect. that was supposed to be a tiger 1, they do not have open vision slits, it is armored glass you can't just shoot through it with a tommy gun and kill the people inside the tank.


Tyranids - they might literally be able to tear a tank apart with their bare hands/ claws.


yes because things like carnifexes and trygons are literally their version of an anti-tank weapon since they are living tanks themselves.

This little tangent has taken us way off topic. but it basically is GW re-inventing rules they had before in a new way to try and fix something they screwed up(again)

They have done this in every edition with rules that were good, then removed only to bring them back in some way later or conversely try something that turned out terrible but rinse and repeat the same kind of mistake in the next edition.


 
   
Made in it
Longtime Dakkanaut





The old wound chart has been around for a long time.

With time, it showed obvious flaws.

It was discarded for good reasons.

Long live the new chart.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/18 11:26:00


 
   
Made in us
Da Head Honcho Boss Grot





Karol wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
Karol wrote:
never had an opponent unit charge something my with enough shots charge, unless they could ingore overwatch. for 5 man squads it was mostly irrelevant, if free rules. small nerf, but hardly worth the worry for me.

It does make IH seem strange though. If they can use their chapter tactic only on 1 unit and only 1 CP, it gets a lot worse.


I mean, until you realize that they have another half of their chapter tactic...the 6+ FNP, which several other factions have as their chapter tactic but WITHOUT the bonus overwatch thing.

...and also don't get doctrines

...or superdoctrines

...or their own psychic powers

...or 6 relics 6 strats etc etc etc etc.

I think the Iron Hands will be FINE compared to other factions' abilities.


But it doesn't make them the best. Specialy in a low CP enviroment. Who cares if about weaker armies when they picked IH to be the best. That is like telling an Inari player that he shouldn't worry, because lets say DA are in much worse situation, if he just takes his models and plays them as plain alaitoc elder.
No one should compare themselfs to those are the lower then them, it makes no sense and hinders growth.


Weird example, given that ynnari are currently the single weakest army in the game, but you do you I guess.
   
Made in de
Pestilent Plague Marine with Blight Grenade




 aphyon wrote:
I think saving private Ryan shows pretty well how CC with a tank is supposed to work in 40K.


That was a movie with a scene made for dramatic effect.


Exactly. And that's what 40K is, too. An over the top Science-Fantasy with "cinematic rules". There are Supersoldiers riding wolves, orks with lasercannons, elves in clown costumes, wizards and other things. No, 20 Soldiers attacking a tank and being a nuisance for it doesn't break my immersion. I know this since Command & Conquer 1. I've played battlefield where you take a screwdriver and run towards a tank to disable it.
I can understand that for some people this sounds too abstract, or not "realistic" enough, but we're playing Warhammer 40K here, not [insert a historically accurate wargame].
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




Sgt. Cortez wrote:
 aphyon wrote:
I think saving private Ryan shows pretty well how CC with a tank is supposed to work in 40K.


That was a movie with a scene made for dramatic effect.


Exactly. And that's what 40K is, too. An over the top Science-Fantasy with "cinematic rules". There are Supersoldiers riding wolves, orks with lasercannons, elves in clown costumes, wizards and other things. No, 20 Soldiers attacking a tank and being a nuisance for it doesn't break my immersion. I know this since Command & Conquer 1. I've played battlefield where you take a screwdriver and run towards a tank to disable it.
I can understand that for some people this sounds too abstract, or not "realistic" enough, but we're playing Warhammer 40K here, not [insert a historically accurate wargame].


Yet, some realism is needed for battles to have any meaning at all. The fact that I can spread my marines in starcraft to reduce baneling damage, but can no longer do the same in 40K for blasts is not a positive imo.
   
Made in gb
Wicked Warp Spider





 harlokin wrote:
It's important to my immersion that psychic powers shouldn't be able to damage tanks in 40K, cos I've never heard of one being able to do so historically.


quite so, of course the real cover up is the crews dying to MIND BULLETS

"AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE IS SOME...SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED." 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

Ice_can wrote:
 catbarf wrote:
It takes 99 S4 hits on average to kill a Predator, or 216 S4 hits to kill a Leman Russ. How many of the people complaining about this remote possibility have actually done so in-game?

The complaint is based on the sheer possibility that a low-strength attack could hurt a tank, so switching to a D10 wouldn't fix anything- people would still complain that theoretically enough lasguns could roll 10s or whatever to kill a Predator from full health.

Except your probability with rerolls upon rerolls and bonus with +1 etc etc starts to squew the maths very heavily suddenly and far past the point of reasonable.

+1 strength as a bonus vrs +1 to wound is a very different level of bonus

Not to mention the issue of AP not differentiated between vehicals and monsters vrs infantry. Every dang Marine gets full rerolls on hits, rerolls on wounds, can have bonus AP or Mortals on 6's and avarages Ap-2.

It takes only 48 bolt rifle shots from Intercessors turn 2&3 to kill a predator with CM & LT buffs that's the real problem.


I don't really see a problem with over four hundred points of Marines, backed up by multiple characters, taking out a tank- but if anything, that points to a bigger issue being the way Marines get re-rolls and bonus AP handed out like candy. It takes five whole squads of Guardsmen four turns of continuous fire at under half range to accomplish the same; that's not something that actually happens in play.
   
Made in us
Pestilent Plague Marine with Blight Grenade




It's important to my immersion that psychic powers shouldn't be able to damage tanks in 40K, cos I've never heard of one being able to do so historically.


I don't really have a dog in this fight (outside of agreeing that really basic things like choppas really have no place wounding a tank), but what's kind of ironic about this discussion is that the 2nd ed rule book actually specifically said something like "infantry units in base to base contact with vehicles auto-hit. This represents the model jamming a gun barrel through a vision slit, or dropping a grenade through an open turret."

So at least in "40k history", you COULD wound a predator by firing through the vision slit.

I don't know which side of the argument I really sit on, but just find it funny that got brought up. There is at least precedence for things like Predators and Russ tanks being "wounded" in that manner. Remember, we THINK we're playing a sci-fi game, but we're working with rules writers who think it's the Napoleonic Wars, so weird things are bound to happen ....

Edit: I just googled ablutions and apparently it does not including dropping a duece. I should have looked it up early sorry for any confusion. - Baldsmug

Psiensis on the "good old days":
"Kids these days...
... I invented the 6th Ed meta back in 3rd ed.
Wait, what were we talking about again? Did I ever tell you about the time I gave you five bees for a quarter? That's what you'd say in those days, "give me five bees for a quarter", is what you'd say in those days. And you'd go down to the D&D shop, with an onion in your belt, 'cause that was the style of the time. So there I was in the D&D shop..." 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran





I find it amusing that the effectiveness of basic infantry weapons against tanks is somehow valid due to abstraction, yet since 6th Ed. infantry close combat weapons drag the game down with totally unnecessary AP-specific weaponry. There used to be power weapons or not, which makes more sense than the current or recent systems, especially on the scale depicted in the game. GW oversimplifies one aspect while over-complicating others.

Hopefully their new Overwatch mechanic will find that middle sweet spot.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/18 13:38:43


 
   
Made in us
Pestilent Plague Marine with Blight Grenade




Meant to say this earlier and got sidetracked -

Over all, this is one of the first changes I actually like. IMO, most of the other things we've seen to this point won't have the intended effect (points increase to speed up game play, etc), or are outright bad ways to solve a problem, but this one has potential.

Just like the changes I view as "negative", I'm withholding judgement. There is every possibility they ruin this by giving just enough armies the ability to ignore the rule that it essentially makes the rule pointless. We shall see, but for now at least, I'm optimistic on this one.

Edit: I just googled ablutions and apparently it does not including dropping a duece. I should have looked it up early sorry for any confusion. - Baldsmug

Psiensis on the "good old days":
"Kids these days...
... I invented the 6th Ed meta back in 3rd ed.
Wait, what were we talking about again? Did I ever tell you about the time I gave you five bees for a quarter? That's what you'd say in those days, "give me five bees for a quarter", is what you'd say in those days. And you'd go down to the D&D shop, with an onion in your belt, 'cause that was the style of the time. So there I was in the D&D shop..." 
   
Made in us
Da Head Honcho Boss Grot





 amanita wrote:
I find it amusing that the effectiveness of basic infantry weapons against tanks is somehow valid due to abstraction, yet since 6th Ed. infantry close combat weapons drag the game down with totally unnecessary AP-specific weaponry. There used to be power weapons or not, which makes more sense than the current or recent systems, especially on the scale depicted in the game. GW oversimplifies one aspect while over-complicating others.

Hopefully their new Overwatch mechanic will find that middle sweet spot.


Yeah, GW have gotten really stupid with their distinctions between an axe and a sword and a maul.

Now, hold on, I need to look up the stats for my squad sergeant's neovolkite chargeblast annihilator, it's got a different statline to the regular occularium boltlaunch chadrifles the rest of the squad is equipped with. Am I in specularis doctrine this turn or shadenfreude doctrine, I don't remember, it makes my AP better for wepons with 'bolt' in the name and my Steel Sharks chapter can reroll 1s to hit and 3s to wound while they're in shadenfreude.

Sorry, can you - can you take a look at these color swatches with me and make sure I'm supposed to be using the rules for the Steel Sharks or the Greige Wombats chapter? I got those in the latest white dwarf and I really think they better match my paint scheme.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





dhallnet wrote:

Anti infantery weapons/ammo isn't designed to take out vehicles. It will scratch the paint job and that's it. Even a bolt, it's an explosive ammo, not an armour plating penetrating device. Even if the weapons are deadlier, the armor is designed to withstand them, otherwise it makes no sense to produce armor in the first place. A tank designed to endure a few lascanon shots, should probably not be concerned at all by lasguns.



Even seen a tank move without its tracks on? Or a turret swivel when it is jammed? Or drive under fire without a periscope? Or the engine block overheat, because the exhaust is destroyed?

   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Sherrypie wrote:
Common soldiers with potatoes and bottles of fuel have stopped tanks in real life.
Again, the bolded part helps us, not you.

These are troops, using specific implements to defeat a tank (ie. spreading a fire). The game, 40K, has these implements already - meltabombs, haywire, kraks, EMP, etc. - and these are what they are used for. They are not abstracted. They are given specific rules because that is how infantry deal with armour up close - with explosives, mines and other things that set fires and case things to go boom (and, ok, EMP as well I guess).

Not with a choppa.
Not with a bayonet.
Not with a gauntleted fist (unless it's a power fist! )
Not with a laspistol.
Not even with a chainsword!

As I just said:

"If [meltabombs, et al.] weren't part of the game you could abstract that all units have similar sorts of devices for that kind of attack, but [GW] don't."

And as the point of this has been rolling dice to fish for 6's, my argument about troops unloading small arms into vehicles just doesn't happen, and saying "it's an abstraction" like that makes it suddenly ok is a terrible argument (it's a cop-out, as I said - you get to abandon all logic and reason in favour of "It happens just 'cause!").



So basically if I modeled some infantry with potatoes and bottles of fuel it would be fine then!

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in us
Pestilent Plague Marine with Blight Grenade




So basically if I modeled some infantry with potatoes and bottles of fuel it would be fine then!


I hear these are already being added to the new Tank Bustas sprue.

Edit: I just googled ablutions and apparently it does not including dropping a duece. I should have looked it up early sorry for any confusion. - Baldsmug

Psiensis on the "good old days":
"Kids these days...
... I invented the 6th Ed meta back in 3rd ed.
Wait, what were we talking about again? Did I ever tell you about the time I gave you five bees for a quarter? That's what you'd say in those days, "give me five bees for a quarter", is what you'd say in those days. And you'd go down to the D&D shop, with an onion in your belt, 'cause that was the style of the time. So there I was in the D&D shop..." 
   
Made in fr
Regular Dakkanaut




 Daedalus81 wrote:

Even seen a tank move without its tracks on? Or a turret swivel when it is jammed? Or drive under fire without a periscope? Or the engine block overheat, because the exhaust is destroyed?

Thanks for an original reply, I don't know what anyone could answer to that and you totally nailed the core of the issue here.
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: