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
Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon





 ClockworkZion wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
The reason MM's got a boost to lethality was to make them attractive as an anti-tank option, because there wasn't much point in bringing dedicated anti-tank weapons in 8th given how pathetic vehicles* are.

But the increased lethality of the MM meant that now vehicles were afraid of them and all the stuff that was already killing them, making vehicles even worse. Now trying to 'balance' anti-tank weapons would just be further missing the problem.



*Everything I say about vehicles applies to monsters as well, BTW.

Exactly this. It's a big reason I said that the changes I mentioned for tanks should be applied to monsters.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
 ClockworkZion wrote:
People spent the entire last edition complaining about chip damage. The only reason MM are better now was their boosted statline at the start of the edition paired with their criminally low points cost. If the points go up to fix that we'd see the chip damage come back.


People complained, because they hate the concept - not because it was an effective method of tank killing.

It was more effective than the "anti-tank" weapons we had in the game point for point. If we saw a points increase on anti-tank weapons to bring them back in line with their new stats we'd be right back where we started without some kind of change.


I disagree. If we appropriately costed these new AT wonder weapons, we might see more tank like constructs on the table. The meta may do it for us if it moves away from elite infantry and goes horde heavy. We're just not there yet.
   
Made in us
Daemonic Dreadnought




The dark hollows of Kentucky

 ClockworkZion wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
 ClockworkZion wrote:
People spent the entire last edition complaining about chip damage. The only reason MM are better now was their boosted statline at the start of the edition paired with their criminally low points cost. If the points go up to fix that we'd see the chip damage come back.


People complained, because they hate the concept - not because it was an effective method of tank killing.

It was more effective than the "anti-tank" weapons we had in the game point for point. If we saw a points increase on anti-tank weapons to bring them back in line with their new stats we'd be right back where we started without some kind of change.

We've already had "some kind of change". We have an entire faction that laughs at the kind of weapons you're talking about, as well as an entire class of vehicles. But both of them melt when Mr. Eradicator and his buddy Attack Bike come to town. The problem is the new and improved (and underpriced) AT weapons. Death Guard and Dreadnoughts already make spamming 2D guns a big mistake.
   
Made in us
Blessed Living Saint




On the Internet

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 ClockworkZion wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
 ClockworkZion wrote:
People spent the entire last edition complaining about chip damage. The only reason MM are better now was their boosted statline at the start of the edition paired with their criminally low points cost. If the points go up to fix that we'd see the chip damage come back.


People complained, because they hate the concept - not because it was an effective method of tank killing.

It was more effective than the "anti-tank" weapons we had in the game point for point. If we saw a points increase on anti-tank weapons to bring them back in line with their new stats we'd be right back where we started without some kind of change.

We've already had "some kind of change". We have an entire faction that laughs at the kind of weapons you're talking about, as well as an entire class of vehicles. But both of them melt when Mr. Eradicator and his buddy Attack Bike come to town. The problem is the new and improved (and underpriced) AT weapons. Death Guard and Dreadnoughts already make spamming 2D guns a big mistake.

Okay, try to keep up because I've said this already: if we fix the points costing issue of underpriced AT weapons the game will just shift back to the weapon that is more effective point for point over the one tailor made for the job.
   
Made in es
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain




Vigo. Spain.

Why does people always ignore the ease of access to bonus to hit, wound, reroll to hit, to wound, and bonus ap?

Of course you need a ton of vanilla autocannons or heavy bolters or plasma guns to drop a predator or a leman russ.

But put a couple of buffs that everyone has, buffs that are better the more shots you are doing, and look how fast the math changes.

 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
Daemonic Dreadnought




The dark hollows of Kentucky

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Spoiler:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 ClockworkZion wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
 ClockworkZion wrote:
People spent the entire last edition complaining about chip damage. The only reason MM are better now was their boosted statline at the start of the edition paired with their criminally low points cost. If the points go up to fix that we'd see the chip damage come back.


People complained, because they hate the concept - not because it was an effective method of tank killing.

It was more effective than the "anti-tank" weapons we had in the game point for point. If we saw a points increase on anti-tank weapons to bring them back in line with their new stats we'd be right back where we started without some kind of change.

We've already had "some kind of change". We have an entire faction that laughs at the kind of weapons you're talking about, as well as an entire class of vehicles. But both of them melt when Mr. Eradicator and his buddy Attack Bike come to town. The problem is the new and improved (and underpriced) AT weapons. Death Guard and Dreadnoughts already make spamming 2D guns a big mistake.

Okay, try to keep up because I've said this already: if we fix the points costing issue of underpriced AT weapons the game will just shift back to the weapon that is more effective point for point over the one tailor made for the job.

No, you try to keep up. Those already aren't effective anymore. You want to spam those kinds of weapons against me? Awesome. I won't have any worries bringing any of my tanks. You'll be all day trying to kill them and the dreadnoughts backing them up. And when you run into Death Guard you'll fall flat on your face.
   
Made in us
Blessed Living Saint




On the Internet

 Galas wrote:
Why does people always ignore the ease of access to bonus to hit, wound, reroll to hit, to wound, and bonus ap?

Of course you need a ton of vanilla autocannons or heavy bolters or plasma guns to drop a predator or a leman russ.

But put a couple of buffs that everyone has, buffs that are better the more shots you are doing, and look how fast the math changes.

There's a reason Imperial Fists were so good at anti-tank using heavy bolters before Marines got nerfed.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 ClockworkZion wrote:

Okay, try to keep up because I've said this already: if we fix the points costing issue of underpriced AT weapons the game will just shift back to the weapon that is more effective point for point over the one tailor made for the job.


It won't really though. That kind of dynamic is a bit dead. YMMV where you play, but the step down from D3+3 and Melta is D2. D2 is countered by DG, dreads, and likely other units in the near future. Pivoting to D1 will be even more difficult.

You could price them in such a way that they unit is just too expensive to risk and force people to use D2, but that's not going to happen.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Galas wrote:
Why does people always ignore the ease of access to bonus to hit, wound, reroll to hit, to wound, and bonus ap?

Of course you need a ton of vanilla autocannons or heavy bolters or plasma guns to drop a predator or a leman russ.

But put a couple of buffs that everyone has, buffs that are better the more shots you are doing, and look how fast the math changes.


Those bonuses are a lot harder to come by these days.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/12 13:47:04


   
Made in us
Blessed Living Saint




On the Internet

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 ClockworkZion wrote:
Spoiler:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 ClockworkZion wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
 ClockworkZion wrote:
People spent the entire last edition complaining about chip damage. The only reason MM are better now was their boosted statline at the start of the edition paired with their criminally low points cost. If the points go up to fix that we'd see the chip damage come back.


People complained, because they hate the concept - not because it was an effective method of tank killing.

It was more effective than the "anti-tank" weapons we had in the game point for point. If we saw a points increase on anti-tank weapons to bring them back in line with their new stats we'd be right back where we started without some kind of change.

We've already had "some kind of change". We have an entire faction that laughs at the kind of weapons you're talking about, as well as an entire class of vehicles. But both of them melt when Mr. Eradicator and his buddy Attack Bike come to town. The problem is the new and improved (and underpriced) AT weapons. Death Guard and Dreadnoughts already make spamming 2D guns a big mistake.

Okay, try to keep up because I've said this already: if we fix the points costing issue of underpriced AT weapons the game will just shift back to the weapon that is more effective point for point over the one tailor made for the job.

No, you try to keep up. Those already aren't effective anymore. You want to spam those kinds of weapons against me? Awesome. I won't have any worries bringing any of my tanks. You'll be all day trying to kill them and the dreadnoughts backing them up. And when you run into Death Guard you'll fall flat on your face.

You clearly are pretending that people don't have dmg 1 weapons in their armies for TAC lists. Additionally, if we're talking most effective for points value, not taking points hiked AT weapons would leave more room in your list for more guns to drown them in dice.

If we only raise points on the AT weapons to fix the issue then the community will just pursue what does the most damage per point spent. It does it all the time, that's how we ended up with a chip damage meta in the first place. You can not rebalance the points on AT weapons without addressing that issue in some fashion or we end up where we started.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
 ClockworkZion wrote:

Okay, try to keep up because I've said this already: if we fix the points costing issue of underpriced AT weapons the game will just shift back to the weapon that is more effective point for point over the one tailor made for the job.


It won't really though. That kind of dynamic is a bit dead. YMMV where you play, but the step down from D3+3 and Melta is D2. D2 is countered by DG, dreads, and likely other units in the near future. Pivoting to D1 will be even more difficult.

You could price them in such a way that they unit is just too expensive to risk and force people to use D2, but that's not going to happen.

Considering GW's history with double or triple nerfing things that are too good? Yeah, it can definitely happen.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/12 13:51:08


 
   
Made in us
Daemonic Dreadnought




The dark hollows of Kentucky

 ClockworkZion wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 ClockworkZion wrote:
Spoiler:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 ClockworkZion wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
 ClockworkZion wrote:
People spent the entire last edition complaining about chip damage. The only reason MM are better now was their boosted statline at the start of the edition paired with their criminally low points cost. If the points go up to fix that we'd see the chip damage come back.


People complained, because they hate the concept - not because it was an effective method of tank killing.

It was more effective than the "anti-tank" weapons we had in the game point for point. If we saw a points increase on anti-tank weapons to bring them back in line with their new stats we'd be right back where we started without some kind of change.

We've already had "some kind of change". We have an entire faction that laughs at the kind of weapons you're talking about, as well as an entire class of vehicles. But both of them melt when Mr. Eradicator and his buddy Attack Bike come to town. The problem is the new and improved (and underpriced) AT weapons. Death Guard and Dreadnoughts already make spamming 2D guns a big mistake.

Okay, try to keep up because I've said this already: if we fix the points costing issue of underpriced AT weapons the game will just shift back to the weapon that is more effective point for point over the one tailor made for the job.

No, you try to keep up. Those already aren't effective anymore. You want to spam those kinds of weapons against me? Awesome. I won't have any worries bringing any of my tanks. You'll be all day trying to kill them and the dreadnoughts backing them up. And when you run into Death Guard you'll fall flat on your face.

You clearly are pretending that people don't have dmg 1 weapons in their armies for TAC lists. Additionally, if we're talking most effective for points value, not taking points hiked AT weapons would leave more room in your list for more guns to drown them in dice.

If we only raise points on the AT weapons to fix the issue then the community will just pursue what does the most damage per point spent. It does it all the time, that's how we ended up with a chip damage meta in the first place. You can not rebalance the points on AT weapons without addressing that issue in some fashion or we end up where we started.

Umm, no. Not forgetting that. Those aren't going to kill my tanks as fast as multi-meltas either. They'd be fine if this calamity of yours happened. So problem solved.
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

I don't know what's so hard about this to understand.

If the choice is between a weapon that does everything kinda well, or a weapon that only does one thing really well, the better choice is the former, even if it's not effective at one specific role. Taking mid-strength mid-damage multi-shot weapons is good because they basically could do anything, even if it wasn't the most efficient thing to do. Taking dedicated anti-tank weapons was a crap shoot because of swingy damage (D6) and because they were too specific, sometimes too expensive, and just weren't actually any good (no one took Multi-Meltas before they turned them into proper AT weapons).

GW recognised that anti-tank weapons weren't really a big deal, so we saw an increase of the lethality (like the quantum shift the MM experienced). Unfortunately, the durability of vehicles did not change, so not only do we have the kinda-good weapons doing damage to them, but now the far-more-dangerous AT weapons. If you put the price on these more scary AT weapons up, people just go back to the weapons that can do everything, even if they don't do everything as well as the AT weapons kill tanks, because for the same price you can bring more of them.

It's the exact same concept of Guard heavy weaponry in 3rd/4th/5th. The Autocannon was S7. Krak missiles were S8. The Krak missile is clearly better, right? Well no, because it fires one shot at BS3 and the Autocannon fired 2. This meant that, on average, the Autocannon would hit once a turn, whereas the Krak Missile would miss 3 turns out of the usual 6 turn game. The Autocannon was a weaker weapon on paper, but it was always the better choice, because it was more reliable, and therefore ended up being more effective, even if it was a weaker weapon and couldn't hurt AV14. More lower strength shots were better than one higher strength shot.

The problem isn't the AT weaponry (although they did need to be better to actually be good at anti-tank work), the problem is that tanks can be killed by everything thanks to the stupid To Wound chart and the low wound counts on vehicles. Whether points on MMs need to go up or down is immaterial. The change needs to be made to the vehicles itself, be it reductions in damage, more wounds, something else, or all of the above.

Simply saying "Well it's no biggie with Dreadnoughts now" or "It doesn't bother Death Guard" is meaningless as it doesn't solve the fact that no one is taking Gladiators or Predators and similar vehicles/monsters. That vehicles (and a lot of monsters) tie up a hell of a lot of points for no return, as they're dead far too quickly thanks to the overall lethality of 40k (which all stems from that To Wound chart allowing anything to wound everything, making some weapons into jack-of-all-trade weapons by dint of just having a lot of shots and ok damage, which isn't what they're meant for).


This message was edited 7 times. Last update was at 2021/06/12 14:49:54


Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in it
Focused Fire Warrior





Bring back (in part) the old wound chart:
2+ on a difference of 2 or more (S>>T)
3+ on a difference of 1 (S>T)
4+ on S=T
5+ on a difference of 1 (S<T)
6+ on a difference of 2 or more (S<<T)

It doesn't seem much, but this way S5 or S6 weapons wound T8 only on a 6+ (5+ currently, 6+ is for S4 and lower). Same for S5 vs T7.
The more obvious solution would be using higher T values (T9, T10, ...), but since they seem to be allergic to that, a different wound chart would partially solve the issue.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/06/12 15:13:28



 
   
Made in us
Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon





 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I don't know what's so hard about this to understand.

If the choice is between a weapon that does everything kinda well, or a weapon that only does one thing really well, the better choice is the former, even if it's not effective at one specific role. Taking mid-strength mid-damage multi-shot weapons is good because they basically could do anything, even if it wasn't the most efficient thing to do. Taking dedicated anti-tank weapons was a crap shoot because of swingy damage (D6) and because they were too specific, sometimes too expensive, and just weren't actually any good (no one took Multi-Meltas before they turned them into proper AT weapons).

GW recognised that anti-tank weapons weren't really a big deal, so we saw an increase of the lethality (like the quantum shift the MM experienced). Unfortunately, the durability of vehicles did not change, so not only do we have the kinda-good weapons doing damage to them, but now the far-more-dangerous AT weapons. If you put the price on these more scary AT weapons up, people just go back to the weapons that can do everything, even if they don't do everything as well as the AT weapons kill tanks, because for the same price you can bring more of them.

It's the exact same concept of Guard heavy weaponry in 3rd/4th/5th. The Autocannon was S7. Krak missiles were S8. The Krak missile is clearly better, right? Well no, because it fires one shot at BS3 and the Autocannon fired 2. This meant that, on average, the Autocannon would hit once a turn, whereas the Krak Missile would miss 3 turns out of the usual 6 turn game. The Autocannon was a weaker weapon on paper, but it was always the better choice, because it was more reliable, and therefore ended up being more effective, even if it was a weaker weapon and couldn't hurt AV14. More lower strength shots were better than one higher strength shot.

The problem isn't the AT weaponry (although they did need to be better to actually be good at anti-tank work), the problem is that tanks can be killed by everything thanks to the stupid To Wound chart and the low wound counts on vehicles. Whether points on MMs need to go up or down is immaterial. The change needs to be made to the vehicles itself, be it reductions in damage, more wounds, something else, or all of the above.

Simply saying "Well it's no biggie with Dreadnoughts now" or "It doesn't bother Death Guard" is meaningless as it doesn't solve the fact that no one is taking Gladiators or Predators and similar vehicles/monsters. That vehicles (and a lot of monsters) tie up a hell of a lot of points for no return, as they're dead far too quickly thanks to the overall lethality of 40k (which all stems from that To Wound chart allowing anything to wound everything, making some weapons into jack-of-all-trade weapons by dint of just having a lot of shots and ok damage, which isn't what they're meant for).




What units, exactly, do you foresee rising up to prominence if AT weapons are increased as suggested? I'm truly curious what this new boogeyman would be.
As it stands, nobody is going to be bringing vehicles right now, because they melt to melta and dark lances. If they were taken out of the equation, what would continue to stop people bringing armour? Please be specific instead of generalizing these mid tier weapons.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







2 damage heavy Bolters were oppressive against vehicles in some Imperial Fists lists in 8th, to the point they didn't bother bringing other anti-tank weapons. That is the reason they FAQ'd the Fists thing to only work on heavy weapons with a Strength 7 or higher.

Now, though, *all* heavy bolters are Damage 2, though undercoated MMs outdo them now with the changes so the effect against tanks is hidden.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 Unit1126PLL wrote:
2 damage heavy Bolters were oppressive against vehicles in some Imperial Fists lists in 8th, to the point they didn't bother bringing other anti-tank weapons. That is the reason they FAQ'd the Fists thing to only work on heavy weapons with a Strength 7 or higher.

Now, though, *all* heavy bolters are Damage 2, though undercoated MMs outdo them now with the changes so the effect against tanks is hidden.


I think you're ignoring that those HBs exploded and were D3. No one else used HBs in such a fashion ergo HBs are not themselves oppressive.

   
Made in us
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord





In My Lab

 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
2 damage heavy Bolters were oppressive against vehicles in some Imperial Fists lists in 8th, to the point they didn't bother bringing other anti-tank weapons. That is the reason they FAQ'd the Fists thing to only work on heavy weapons with a Strength 7 or higher.

Now, though, *all* heavy bolters are Damage 2, though undercoated MMs outdo them now with the changes so the effect against tanks is hidden.


I think you're ignoring that those HBs exploded and were D3. No one else used HBs in such a fashion ergo HBs are not themselves oppressive.
This was before Heavy Bolters got their D2 buff.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in mx
Tunneling Trygon




Mexico

Heavy Bolters are only oppressive if you combine them with re-rolls to wound. Such re-rolls are harder to get in 9th, if they weren't then Space Marines wouldn't be getting their teeth kicked in by Dark Eldar (on paper, re-rolling Heavy Bolters would be very damn good against Raiders).

Hell Raiders also showcase this because everyone uses the Dark Lance, even though the Disintegrator cannon is basically a better Heavy Bolter.
   
Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka







 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Now, though, *all* heavy bolters are Damage 2, though undercoated MMs outdo them now with the changes so the effect against tanks is hidden.


Do fully-painted MMs perform even better?

2021 Plog - Here we go again... - my fifth attempt at a Dakka PLOG

My [url=https://pileofpotential.com/dysartes]Pile of Potential[/url - updates ongoing...

Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.


 Kanluwen wrote:
This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.

Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army... 
   
Made in us
Hardened Veteran Guardsman





 Dysartes wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Now, though, *all* heavy bolters are Damage 2, though undercoated MMs outdo them now with the changes so the effect against tanks is hidden.


Do fully-painted MMs perform even better?

Only if you nick yourself when assembling them and smear the blood on the weapon/nearby purity seals, of course.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







Lol, best typo
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins




 Galas wrote:
Why does people always ignore the ease of access to bonus to hit, wound, reroll to hit, to wound, and bonus ap?

Of course you need a ton of vanilla autocannons or heavy bolters or plasma guns to drop a predator or a leman russ.

But put a couple of buffs that everyone has, buffs that are better the more shots you are doing, and look how fast the math changes.


Full rerolls on hits and wounds bring a heavy bolter up to 1.5ish damage against a rhino on average, an increase of .5 damage. Full rerolls hits and wounds on multimeltas bring it up to 5.5 damage on average (no melta range) an increase of about 2.4 damage. Both are about 50% increases but because the heavy bolter starts so low it doesn't get as much benefit as the multimelta. Even accounting for the difference in price by taking 2 heavy bolters, you still end up doing about half the damage per point to a rhino equivalent. In melta range MMs do almost triple damage per point.


2500pts
2500
3000


 
   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut




Some tanks (and similar things) are good and really quite tasty - In my opinion things like the DG’s Plagueburst Crawler, Drukhari’s Ravager are in quite a nice space interms of points cost, offence and defence. The Castigator seems to be in a much better place than many tanks, and lot’s of the Ad-mec doesn’t look that bad either.

Thus, to me the issue is that a significant number of metal boxes aren’t a good space. So, to me the problem to solve is not about making all tanks better (e.g. by providing blanket buff to all tanky/ vehicly like things) but suitably targeting the sizeable number of tanks that are, tbh at the moment rather underwhelming.

When I look at some tanks that I’d consider in a ‘good’ space and thus that aren’t a couple of things stick out.
Damage – Lots of tanks main job is to hunt other tanks (and elite heavy infantry) with often some token antipersonnel firepower bought along for the ride. Recent codexes have had AT guns move away from the vast swingyness of D6 lascannons (or similar weapons), with Flat 3 or D3+3 being a rather common feature.
Durability – The one of the principal differentiators in a vehicles durability is an invulnerable save or T8. As far as I can see T6/7 with a 5++ is overall about comparable to T8 without. Most of the vehicles that I’d consider in a good place seem to have one of these features.
Cost – Those things in a good place seem to be appropriately costed for the capabilities…

Overall a scan of limited number of codexes shows a trend that those tanks that I’d consider ‘good’ are often providing a greater offence, matched with an improved defence for fewer points than those tanks I’d consider underwhelming.

Whilst many of these comparisons may be across codexes, there are the odd intracodex comparison (e.g. Predator vs Plague Burst Crawler).

I think changing a lot/most D6 damage things (i.e. lascannons and similar things for others) to D6 min 3, would help even out the damage output of vehicles across factions.
Combine this with appropriate points tweaks and most vehicles should be reasonably useful. Fine a tank with T7/11W/3+ isn’t going to hang around to long with D6(min 3)/D3+3 AT, but so long as it’s appropriately costed, I don’t have a problem with this.

I would welcome back tank-shock at it was cool. The 9E changes allowing vehicles to fire non-blast in engagement range was a nice buff, but doesn't solve the issue of really swingy damage, and that tanks seem to be that bit too pricy.
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins




Cornishman wrote:
Some tanks (and similar things) are good and really quite tasty - In my opinion things like the DG’s Plagueburst Crawler, Drukhari’s Ravager are in quite a nice space interms of points cost, offence and defence. The Castigator seems to be in a much better place than many tanks, and lot’s of the Ad-mec doesn’t look that bad either.

Thus, to me the issue is that a significant number of metal boxes aren’t a good space. So, to me the problem to solve is not about making all tanks better (e.g. by providing blanket buff to all tanky/ vehicly like things) but suitably targeting the sizeable number of tanks that are, tbh at the moment rather underwhelming.

When I look at some tanks that I’d consider in a ‘good’ space and thus that aren’t a couple of things stick out.
Damage – Lots of tanks main job is to hunt other tanks (and elite heavy infantry) with often some token antipersonnel firepower bought along for the ride. Recent codexes have had AT guns move away from the vast swingyness of D6 lascannons (or similar weapons), with Flat 3 or D3+3 being a rather common feature.
Durability – The one of the principal differentiators in a vehicles durability is an invulnerable save or T8. As far as I can see T6/7 with a 5++ is overall about comparable to T8 without. Most of the vehicles that I’d consider in a good place seem to have one of these features.
Cost – Those things in a good place seem to be appropriately costed for the capabilities…

Overall a scan of limited number of codexes shows a trend that those tanks that I’d consider ‘good’ are often providing a greater offence, matched with an improved defence for fewer points than those tanks I’d consider underwhelming.

Whilst many of these comparisons may be across codexes, there are the odd intracodex comparison (e.g. Predator vs Plague Burst Crawler).

I think changing a lot/most D6 damage things (i.e. lascannons and similar things for others) to D6 min 3, would help even out the damage output of vehicles across factions.
Combine this with appropriate points tweaks and most vehicles should be reasonably useful. Fine a tank with T7/11W/3+ isn’t going to hang around to long with D6(min 3)/D3+3 AT, but so long as it’s appropriately costed, I don’t have a problem with this.

I would welcome back tank-shock at it was cool. The 9E changes allowing vehicles to fire non-blast in engagement range was a nice buff, but doesn't solve the issue of really swingy damage, and that tanks seem to be that bit too pricy.


The Castigator is not an example of a tank that's in a good place. It's the second worse unit in the book behind the battle sanctum and that's only because the Sanctum is almost impossible to actually deploy.

2500pts
2500
3000


 
   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut




ERJAK wrote:
Cornishman wrote:
Some tanks (and similar things) are good and really quite tasty - In my opinion things like the DG’s Plagueburst Crawler, Drukhari’s Ravager are in quite a nice space interms of points cost, offence and defence. The Castigator seems to be in a much better place than many tanks, and lot’s of the Ad-mec doesn’t look that bad either.

Thus, to me the issue is that a significant number of metal boxes aren’t a good space. So, to me the problem to solve is not about making all tanks better (e.g. by providing blanket buff to all tanky/ vehicly like things) but suitably targeting the sizeable number of tanks that are, tbh at the moment rather underwhelming.

When I look at some tanks that I’d consider in a ‘good’ space and thus that aren’t a couple of things stick out.
Damage – Lots of tanks main job is to hunt other tanks (and elite heavy infantry) with often some token antipersonnel firepower bought along for the ride. Recent codexes have had AT guns move away from the vast swingyness of D6 lascannons (or similar weapons), with Flat 3 or D3+3 being a rather common feature.
Durability – The one of the principal differentiators in a vehicles durability is an invulnerable save or T8. As far as I can see T6/7 with a 5++ is overall about comparable to T8 without. Most of the vehicles that I’d consider in a good place seem to have one of these features.
Cost – Those things in a good place seem to be appropriately costed for the capabilities…

Overall a scan of limited number of codexes shows a trend that those tanks that I’d consider ‘good’ are often providing a greater offence, matched with an improved defence for fewer points than those tanks I’d consider underwhelming.

Whilst many of these comparisons may be across codexes, there are the odd intracodex comparison (e.g. Predator vs Plague Burst Crawler).

I think changing a lot/most D6 damage things (i.e. lascannons and similar things for others) to D6 min 3, would help even out the damage output of vehicles across factions.
Combine this with appropriate points tweaks and most vehicles should be reasonably useful. Fine a tank with T7/11W/3+ isn’t going to hang around to long with D6(min 3)/D3+3 AT, but so long as it’s appropriately costed, I don’t have a problem with this.

I would welcome back tank-shock at it was cool. The 9E changes allowing vehicles to fire non-blast in engagement range was a nice buff, but doesn't solve the issue of really swingy damage, and that tanks seem to be that bit too pricy.


The Castigator is not an example of a tank that's in a good place. It's the second worse unit in the book behind the battle sanctum and that's only because the Sanctum is almost impossible to actually deploy.


I described the Castigator '<as being> in a much better place than many tanks'. When compared to it's near neighbour the predator (whether loyalist, Chaos or DG) I think this is certianly the case. To me it doesn't look to shaby against any Russ without a demolisher cannon.

For clarity would you prefer:

'Some tanks (and similar things) are good and really quite tasty - In my opinion things like the DG’s Plagueburst Crawler, Drukhari’s Ravager are in quite a nice space interms of points cost, offence and defence. Lot’s of the Ad-mec doesn’t look that bad. Even the Castigator seems to be in a much better place than many tanks'?
   
Made in au
Regular Dakkanaut




I've been playing a Scion infantry horde list recently and I'm surprised how amazing they are at killing vehicles. I had the relic that allows a second order on a 4+, managed to give squads both Elimination Protocol Sanctioned and First Rank Fire Second Rank Fire, wow. Just wow.

I've played maybe 4 games with them now. They've killed Helldrakes, Lord of Discordants, Rhinos, Dreadnaughts, Devilfishes, and a Predator.
   
Made in nl
[DCM]
Secret Inquisitorial Eldar Xenexecutor






your mind

Jarms48 wrote:
I've been playing a Scion infantry horde list recently and I'm surprised how amazing they are at killing vehicles. I had the relic that allows a second order on a 4+, managed to give squads both Elimination Protocol Sanctioned and First Rank Fire Second Rank Fire, wow. Just wow.

I've played maybe 4 games with them now. They've killed Helldrakes, Lord of Discordants, Rhinos, Dreadnaughts, Devilfishes, and a Predator.


Can you offer more details? I expect no or few meltas in there?

Funny this thread, peeps had to go 6 pages before HBMC got the topic in focus.

The trouble imho begins and ends with treating everything the same using wounds and toughness.

And imho small arms fire should never be able to damage armor. Perhaps yes, volumes of heavy rifle fire might affect light armor, but there should be a difference in kind between armoured and not armoured, not only more wounds and higher toughness...

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/06/14 03:16:11


   
Made in mx
Tunneling Trygon




Mexico

 jeff white wrote:

And imho small arms fire should never be able to damage armor. Perhaps yes, volumes of heavy rifle fire might affect light armor, but there should be a difference in kind between armoured and not armoured, not only more wounds and higher toughness...


Yes, that is the armor save, it literally exists to differentiate bewteen armoured and not armoured, and the different degrees on how well armoured they can be.
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







 Tyran wrote:
 jeff white wrote:

And imho small arms fire should never be able to damage armor. Perhaps yes, volumes of heavy rifle fire might affect light armor, but there should be a difference in kind between armoured and not armoured, not only more wounds and higher toughness...


Yes, that is the armor save, it literally exists to differentiate bewteen armoured and not armoured, and the different degrees on how well armoured they can be.


That's great, unless you let people stack buffs to get -2 or -3 AP on small arms and thereby break the distinction between armour-piercing and not armour-piercing...

Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using.
Homebrew oldhammer project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/790996.page#10896267
Meridian: Necromunda-based 40k skirmish: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/795374.page 
   
Made in mx
Tunneling Trygon




Mexico

What small arms are AP-3?

   
Made in us
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord





In My Lab

 Tyran wrote:
What small arms are AP-3?

Bolt Rifles can hit AP-3 in Tactical Doctrine with a Strat or WT.
Stalker Bolt Rifles are AP-3 in Devastator Doctrine.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in us
Blessed Living Saint




On the Internet

 jeff white wrote:
Jarms48 wrote:
I've been playing a Scion infantry horde list recently and I'm surprised how amazing they are at killing vehicles. I had the relic that allows a second order on a 4+, managed to give squads both Elimination Protocol Sanctioned and First Rank Fire Second Rank Fire, wow. Just wow.

I've played maybe 4 games with them now. They've killed Helldrakes, Lord of Discordants, Rhinos, Dreadnaughts, Devilfishes, and a Predator.


Can you offer more details? I expect no or few meltas in there?

Funny this thread, peeps had to go 6 pages before HBMC got the topic in focus.

The trouble imho begins and ends with treating everything the same using wounds and toughness.

And imho small arms fire should never be able to damage armor. Perhaps yes, volumes of heavy rifle fire might affect light armor, but there should be a difference in kind between armoured and not armoured, not only more wounds and higher toughness...

I've tried to talk about the topic several times. Meanwhile people want to talk about planes.

Quite honestly I feel there are three major problems facing tanks:
1. Durability for their points cost
2. Anti-tank weapons being too cheap for their updated statlines
3. Lack of damage mitigation to encourage people to focus on using anti-tank weapons instead of chip damage

Now I know point 3 doesn't exist to some people, but consider it future proofing if the game starts to swing back to chip damage.

Point 1 and 3 are related in my mind and can be fixed with a wounds increase and a nerf to damage allocated to them, or a -1 to the wound roll, or maybe just a bonus to their armour save against weapons of a certain damage or strength value.

Point 2 just needs a small points bump across all the buffed anti-tank weapons.
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: