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 gb
Regular Dakkanaut




 Tyran wrote:
And that's how you get a T9 W22 Damage -2 Mortarion, which would be even more insane.


We're talking about vehicles, primarily, but obviously a certain amount of common sense regarding not doubling up on units that have already had a buff in 9th.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




I have to be honest, this stuff is cracking me up.

Nearly 2/3rds of the comments i've read with suggestions deal with removing small arms weapons from dealing dmg to vehicles. Guys, I hate to break it to you, but my Mek gunz and scrapjets aren't being killed by Bolt guns and splinter rifles, its the D6+2 and the D3+3 weapons that are over the top, you know, the weapons people are saying need to be buffed further because reasons?

 Xenomancers wrote:
It is utterly idiotic...like 8.5 ironhands idiotic to include this rule. I can assure you within 1 month it will be nerfed too...to only be DA characters...which is fine for a free rule that no other marines get...

Just cant stand these snow flake marines anymore.
 
   
Made in us
Blessed Living Saint




On the Internet

SemperMortis wrote:
I have to be honest, this stuff is cracking me up.

Nearly 2/3rds of the comments i've read with suggestions deal with removing small arms weapons from dealing dmg to vehicles. Guys, I hate to break it to you, but my Mek gunz and scrapjets aren't being killed by Bolt guns and splinter rifles, its the D6+2 and the D3+3 weapons that are over the top, you know, the weapons people are saying need to be buffed further because reasons?

Most of that is under the assumption that they up points on the anti-tank weapons which could result in chip damage becoming more prevelant due to a higher efficiency ratio between points spent and dealing damage. It was more a point of the only thing needed to fix those weapons is a points bump, but it doesn't fix the underlying issues for vehicles.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 ClockworkZion wrote:

Most of that is under the assumption that they up points on the anti-tank weapons which could result in chip damage becoming more prevelant due to a higher efficiency ratio between points spent and dealing damage. It was more a point of the only thing needed to fix those weapons is a points bump, but it doesn't fix the underlying issues for vehicles.


Upping the points value isn't the answer, its reducing dmg in general. "Oh no, Multi-meltas now cost 50ppm...oh well, i'll switch over to Melta rifles". Think about this logically, even if they only fixed the anti-tank weapons, what actual dmg are small arms doing to vehicles? its not a general fix you need, its a few outliers. Are bolters causing issues? Against T5-T7 3+ vehicles it takes 13.5 Bolter shots to strip 1 wound. It takes 25 shots from my ork shootas to take 1 wound off a vehicle, Las rifles? against T6+ its 36 shots. So are you really overly concerned if 7-13 Marines, 12-13 Ork boyz or 18-36 Guardsmen strip 1 wound from a vehicle?


 Xenomancers wrote:
It is utterly idiotic...like 8.5 ironhands idiotic to include this rule. I can assure you within 1 month it will be nerfed too...to only be DA characters...which is fine for a free rule that no other marines get...

Just cant stand these snow flake marines anymore.
 
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins




Tacoma, WA, USA

 xeen wrote:
I don't know why there is so much worry on this thread about S4 D1 weapons, regardless of AP against vehicles. Other than finishing off the last wound or two, how many vehicles has anyone lost to bolter fire? Those weapons, even ones like my TS inferno bolters with AP-2 are not the reason why the standard tank (like a predator) is suffering so much in the meta. It is the higher strength D2/D3 weapons and the D3+3 that are the problem. First, I think the D3+3 damage has proven itself to be just too damn good. Yes an AT gun rolling a D6 and getting a one sucks, but this is the pendulum totally the other way. All the D3+3 damage should be reduced to D6 minimum 3 damage. I think that would really help mitigate some of the horrendous AT firepower you are seeing from some lists that make vehicles so worthless. Melta is another problem, but Melta was terrible with one shot, and is super deadly with two shots, so maybe just a price increase to those weapons (or put is back to half range is D6 x 2 pick the highest).
I don't think D6 Min 3 (average 3.83) is really that big a difference from D3+3 (average 5 damage). When dealing with 10-11 wound models, 2-4 damaging hits are what you need to kill it. It's just a matter of what distribution in that range.

As for Melta, it would have been better off if half range just gave you D3+3 (average 5 damage) instead of the current 1d6+2 damage (average 5.5) because the spike damage would be lower given no possibility of 7 or 8 damage.

Still, ultimately that increase AT damage is precisely to allow AT weapons to actually do their job of killing tanks!
   
Made in us
Blessed Living Saint




On the Internet

SemperMortis wrote:
 ClockworkZion wrote:

Most of that is under the assumption that they up points on the anti-tank weapons which could result in chip damage becoming more prevelant due to a higher efficiency ratio between points spent and dealing damage. It was more a point of the only thing needed to fix those weapons is a points bump, but it doesn't fix the underlying issues for vehicles.


Upping the points value isn't the answer, its reducing dmg in general. "Oh no, Multi-meltas now cost 50ppm...oh well, i'll switch over to Melta rifles". Think about this logically, even if they only fixed the anti-tank weapons, what actual dmg are small arms doing to vehicles? its not a general fix you need, its a few outliers. Are bolters causing issues? Against T5-T7 3+ vehicles it takes 13.5 Bolter shots to strip 1 wound. It takes 25 shots from my ork shootas to take 1 wound off a vehicle, Las rifles? against T6+ its 36 shots. So are you really overly concerned if 7-13 Marines, 12-13 Ork boyz or 18-36 Guardsmen strip 1 wound from a vehicle?


Melta rifles would see a points bump too since they're still anti-tank weapons, even if they're less efficient than MM.

And it's mostly not about small arms, it's about high rate of fire D2 weapons like Heavy Bolters, or Autocannons. There are a few edge cases like the Stalker Bolt Rifle that can chip damage, but it's more about the mid tier weapons.

That said, I've argued that it'd be better to future proof against returning to that meta in case something changes in the future that causes it to swing back that way over some kind of belief that 9th ed is a chip damage meta.
   
Made in us
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord





In My Lab

 alextroy wrote:
 xeen wrote:
I don't know why there is so much worry on this thread about S4 D1 weapons, regardless of AP against vehicles. Other than finishing off the last wound or two, how many vehicles has anyone lost to bolter fire? Those weapons, even ones like my TS inferno bolters with AP-2 are not the reason why the standard tank (like a predator) is suffering so much in the meta. It is the higher strength D2/D3 weapons and the D3+3 that are the problem. First, I think the D3+3 damage has proven itself to be just too damn good. Yes an AT gun rolling a D6 and getting a one sucks, but this is the pendulum totally the other way. All the D3+3 damage should be reduced to D6 minimum 3 damage. I think that would really help mitigate some of the horrendous AT firepower you are seeing from some lists that make vehicles so worthless. Melta is another problem, but Melta was terrible with one shot, and is super deadly with two shots, so maybe just a price increase to those weapons (or put is back to half range is D6 x 2 pick the highest).
I don't think D6 Min 3 (average 3.83) is really that big a difference from D3+3 (average 5 damage). When dealing with 10-11 wound models, 2-4 damaging hits are what you need to kill it. It's just a matter of what distribution in that range.

As for Melta, it would have been better off if half range just gave you D3+3 (average 5 damage) instead of the current 1d6+2 damage (average 5.5) because the spike damage would be lower given no possibility of 7 or 8 damage.

Still, ultimately that increase AT damage is precisely to allow AT weapons to actually do their job of killing tanks!
Question on your math! I'm getting 4 as the average of 1d6 min 3.

Can you show your work there? I want to know if I've been goofing.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in au
Regular Dakkanaut





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


No special weapons, just hotshot lasguns. I managed to give 2 out of 3 squads both first rank and elimation protocols. That's 37 hotshot bolts per squad. Hitting on 3+ so that's what? 24 - 25 hits. Wounding on 6's rerolling everything. So 7 - 8 wounds. If they have an Invul say 5++ then that's still 5 damage, per squad.

Not bad for lasguns.

That can be made better to if you pop the stratagem that makes them +1 strength. An S4 hotshot can suddenly wound up to T7 on a 5+.

The other funny unit I was using for AT work was plasma gun spam. I aerial dropped 3 tempestus command squads with 4 plasma guns in each, had a prime with the reroll 1 aura, and gave the squads the elimination protocol order. Overcharging has 8 shots, each AP-4 thanks to being Lions, potential there for 16 damage.

What small arms are AP-3?


Hotshot lasguns are AP-2, AP-3 if they're Lions.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/15 00:32:53


 
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins




Tacoma, WA, USA

 JNAProductions wrote:
 alextroy wrote:
 xeen wrote:
I don't know why there is so much worry on this thread about S4 D1 weapons, regardless of AP against vehicles. Other than finishing off the last wound or two, how many vehicles has anyone lost to bolter fire? Those weapons, even ones like my TS inferno bolters with AP-2 are not the reason why the standard tank (like a predator) is suffering so much in the meta. It is the higher strength D2/D3 weapons and the D3+3 that are the problem. First, I think the D3+3 damage has proven itself to be just too damn good. Yes an AT gun rolling a D6 and getting a one sucks, but this is the pendulum totally the other way. All the D3+3 damage should be reduced to D6 minimum 3 damage. I think that would really help mitigate some of the horrendous AT firepower you are seeing from some lists that make vehicles so worthless. Melta is another problem, but Melta was terrible with one shot, and is super deadly with two shots, so maybe just a price increase to those weapons (or put is back to half range is D6 x 2 pick the highest).
I don't think D6 Min 3 (average 3.83) is really that big a difference from D3+3 (average 5 damage). When dealing with 10-11 wound models, 2-4 damaging hits are what you need to kill it. It's just a matter of what distribution in that range.

As for Melta, it would have been better off if half range just gave you D3+3 (average 5 damage) instead of the current 1d6+2 damage (average 5.5) because the spike damage would be lower given no possibility of 7 or 8 damage.

Still, ultimately that increase AT damage is precisely to allow AT weapons to actually do their job of killing tanks!
Question on your math! I'm getting 4 as the average of 1d6 min 3.

Can you show your work there? I want to know if I've been goofing.
Your right. I had a figure wrong in my calculation. Makes the two methods that much less different. I suspect they just don't like the roll, but minimum method and therefore went with d3+3 instead. Also, it gives an even distribution of damage, a more esthetically pleasing result
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




NE Ohio, USA

SemperMortis wrote:
 ClockworkZion wrote:

Most of that is under the assumption that they up points on the anti-tank weapons which could result in chip damage becoming more prevelant due to a higher efficiency ratio between points spent and dealing damage. It was more a point of the only thing needed to fix those weapons is a points bump, but it doesn't fix the underlying issues for vehicles.


Upping the points value isn't the answer, its reducing dmg in general. "Oh no, Multi-meltas now cost 50ppm...oh well, i'll switch over to Melta rifles". Think about this logically, even if they only fixed the anti-tank weapons, what actual dmg are small arms doing to vehicles? its not a general fix you need, its a few outliers. Are bolters causing issues? Against T5-T7 3+ vehicles it takes 13.5 Bolter shots to strip 1 wound. It takes 25 shots from my ork shootas to take 1 wound off a vehicle, Las rifles? against T6+ its 36 shots. So are you really overly concerned if 7-13 Marines, 12-13 Ork boyz or 18-36 Guardsmen strip 1 wound from a vehicle?



Only because they shouldn't be doing it at all.
   
Made in us
Depraved Slaanesh Chaos Lord




Inside Yvraine

Nah. There is nothing wrong with a lasgun being able to plink a wound off a baneblade. Not only is it fine balance wise but it provides nice cinematic moments as well.

The protest against anything being able to wound anything is completely arbitrary and isn't based off any kind of actual game design philosophy.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/15 06:46:57


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







Well, actually, yes, it's based on the game design philosophy that immersion is important for the players (and that "realism" or "simulation" is the purpose of wargaming, as opposed to board gaming or playing pretend).

I would be justifiably deprecatory towards a rule-set that allowed an M1 Garand to plink damage onto a King Tiger in World War 2. It isn't "cinematic", it isn't historical, it isn't realistic. It's just, frankly, rather silly.

Like the scene with the Tiger in Saving Private Ryan, where a guy fires a tommy gun into the tank's vision slit. In 40k, that'd be "close combat" but even in real life, vision slits didn't work that way. They weren't vulnerable to small arms, if only you could aim well enough or get real close. They had several inches of armored glass to prevent precisely what happened in the film.

That wasn't epic or cinematic to me. It just made my suspension of disbelief bend almost to breaking.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/15 11:47:03


 
   
Made in us
Monster-Slaying Daemonhunter




SemperMortis wrote:
I have to be honest, this stuff is cracking me up.

Nearly 2/3rds of the comments i've read with suggestions deal with removing small arms weapons from dealing dmg to vehicles. Guys, I hate to break it to you, but my Mek gunz and scrapjets aren't being killed by Bolt guns and splinter rifles, its the D6+2 and the D3+3 weapons that are over the top, you know, the weapons people are saying need to be buffed further because reasons?


I think my hurricane bolter bikes would disagree with you. Obviously not against Morty, but against other T8 units, I have had zero problems shooting them off the board with massed bike fire from just S4 AP0 D1 guns.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







Also, from a game design perspective, if it really takes 72 lasgun shots to do a wound to a Land Raider (about right mathematically assuming BS4+ guardsmen), then why allow everything to hurt everything from a purely pragmatic perspective?

Clearly it is simpler to say "land raider immune to lasguns" then to force players to issue FRFSRF, roll a bazillion dice, reroll 1s (because Yarrick, why not), roll a bazillion more dice to wound (and reroll ones again because of Bring it Down, because why not), and then roll some fraction of that bazillion to save just to get two wounds on a Land Raider or whatever.

Feels like a lot of needless rolling and time-wasting for an element that isn't cinematic, isn't realistic, and isn't necessary.

So either:
a) small arms do enough against tanks to matter, in which case they should probably be nerfed
or
b) small arms don't do much against tanks already, in which case making tanks immune changes nothing aside from improving the game from both speed and immersion perspectives.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/06/15 11:53:15


 
   
Made in it
Gargantuan Gargant




Italy

To kill a 40ppm Smasha gunz using S4 AP0 D1 weapons you need 40 shots, assuming you're firing at BS3+ with no re-rolls. Also assuming there's no cover of any kind.

Yeah, zero problems means using models that cost hundred of points that need to be in rapid fire range (maybe they have to max out the shots anyway though) and minutes of dice rolling just to delete a vehicle that worths 40.

To strip a single wound off a naut (or any other T8 3+ save model) you need 27 shots. If the model has 2+ like a LR then you need 54 shots.


 
   
Made in gb
Ship's Officer





Bristol (UK)

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

So either:
a) small arms do enough against tanks to matter, in which case they should probably be nerfed
or
b) small arms don't do much against tanks already, in which case making tanks immune changes nothing aside from improving the game from both speed and immersion perspectives.

I agree with this completely.
I think there's three reasons to implement a rule; thematics, fun, and balance.
Small arms damaging tanks isn't really thematic. You can sort of twist yourself to justify it but it always feels very contrived.
It's not really fun, throwing mountains of dice and doing almost no damage is just a bore. Frankly, small arms vs other infantry often falls into this trap at the moment, let alone vs tanks.
Balance is perhaps the only justification for it. GW doesn't want the frustration of your opponent plonking down a knight army and immediately rendering 2/3 of your army totally useless. But that's a specific problem that shouldn't drag down the rest of the game. Ultimately I think the negative drag of the thematic and fun elements overrule this and mean small arms shouldn't be able to wound tanks.

I'd like to just return to the old to-wound table. It's clear statlines were designed to use that table, it'd reduce the effect of small arms and mid-strength weapons against tanks, and even enhance the capability of powerful AT weapons against light vehicles. Seems like a win-win to me.
   
Made in us
Monster-Slaying Daemonhunter




Right now I am picturing a gif of tom hanks firing his 1911 at a German tank that's advancing towards him, and on the last shot the tank blows up.
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Right now I am picturing a gif of tom hanks firing his 1911 at a German tank that's advancing towards him, and on the last shot the tank blows up.


More accurately, Tom Hanks and his 431 clones.

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!
 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Right now I am picturing a gif of tom hanks firing his 1911 at a German tank that's advancing towards him, and on the last shot the tank blows up.

That gif cuts short right before the P-51 flies over with rockets under the wings and Tom Hanks whispers "angels on our shoulders" which is one of the movie taglines.

But sure, his 1911 killed the tank.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/15 12:49:27


 
   
Made in gb
Ship's Officer





Bristol (UK)

The plane in SPR didn't have rockets, it just strafed the tank to death!
But I fear we'll veer a little off topic if we start debating the viability of aircraft as tank crackers in WW2.
   
Made in hk
Longtime Dakkanaut





Don't think we want tanks to be totally immune to small arms fire. Because by extension, these same tanks might end up being totally immune to many forms of close combat attacks. Some melee units are just Str 4, but rely on many many attacks to get through. If a tank is immune to a Str 4 bolter, by the same extension that tank will now be immune to a Str 4 astartes chainsword ?

And we have to be careful about Dreadnaughts too. Dreadnaughts are already preferred over tanks in many lists. If any change further buffs dreadnaughts as well, you still won't see any tank on the field, but you may see more and more Dreadnaughts and their equivalents.
   
Made in us
Monster-Slaying Daemonhunter




My point is it's a perfect allegory for what 9th is now. Yes, that .45 1911 is capable of dropping a human soldier in a single shot, it doesn't have to even be well aimed. But it should NEVER cause a tank to suddenly explode. which is what Las pistols can seemingly do in 8th/9th with an extremely good roll.
   
Made in us
Omnipotent Necron Overlord






 Tyran wrote:
And that's how you get a T9 W22 Damage -2 Mortarion, which would be even more insane.

I don't think monsters need anything mostly. They typical have melee ability to cover from their lack of defense. Plus - the majority of monsters also have an invune save.

I am thinking in particular about a certain breed of tanks. The T8 no invune ones...The ones with a hint at being tough without actually being tough.
Landraiders/Repuslors/Battlewaggons/Baneblades/Viindicators, ECT

A few monsters I can think of that do need defensive help - Haruspex/Tyranofex

All these units got T8 but it does nothing most of the time. They should all just go to T9 2+ save. Because the T8 3+ save profile is barely an upgrade from T7 3+.

If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder 
   
Made in us
Tunneling Trygon




Mexico

 Xenomancers wrote:
I don't think monsters need anything mostly. They typical have melee ability to cover from their lack of defense. Plus - the majority of monsters also have an invune save.


That's like saying vehicles don't need anything because Raiders and Plagueburts Crawlers are borderline OP.

Some monsters are fine, specially the ones that already got a 9th upgrade, but most of them? seriously doubting that claim.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/06/15 14:13:58


 
   
Made in pl
Fixture of Dakka




yep for nids for example. pre nerf demi, the tyrants as obligatory choice and then the gun monsters that double tap when stationary. Everything else is really bad. I don't normally get to expiriance other armies being bad. But after seeing what 10 paladins did to two trygons, I think that the trygs should either be a lot cheaper or made better in some way.

If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in us
Omnipotent Necron Overlord






 Tyran wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
I don't think monsters need anything mostly. They typical have melee ability to cover from their lack of defense. Plus - the majority of monsters also have an invune save.


That's like saying vehicles don't need anything because Raiders and Plagueburts Crawlers are borderline OP.

Some monsters are fine, specially the ones that already got a 9th upgrade, but most of them? seriously doubting that claim.

Okay lets talk monsters then.
Space marines have one monster - Gman - hes awesome.
Deathgaurd have a few mosnters - daemon prince / morty - they really good
Daemons - they tones of monsters - Most of them are competitive - LOC/ KOS/ are some of the best units in the game... Keep in mind every single one of these models listed have an invune save.
Tau riptide - has a 3++ save and a 2 save...It's fine defensively the army just can't hold an objective.
Ghazgul Thrakka...Kinda good? Also have a 2+ 4++
Nids are the only army I can really think of that has some bad monsters - It's cause they don't have invune saves for the most part. I'd say for the T8 3+ profiles...give them T9 2+ would make those units literally awesome. For the T7 3+ profiles - just give them a 5++ save like the rest of the monsters in the game have for the most part and call it a day.


If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder 
   
Made in us
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord





In My Lab

Great Unclean One?
Bloodthirster?

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in us
Omnipotent Necron Overlord






 JNAProductions wrote:
Great Unclean One?
Bloodthirster?
They got invune saves. They are more tough than a tank without one as a result. Their issue of suckage if they do indeed suck...is related to points.

If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder 
   
Made in us
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord





In My Lab

 Xenomancers wrote:
 JNAProductions wrote:
Great Unclean One?
Bloodthirster?
They got invune saves. They are more tough than a tank without one as a result. Their issue of suckage if they do indeed suck...is related to points.
It takes 183 BS3+ Bolter shots to kill a GUO.
It takes 864 of the same to kill a Land Raider.
432 for a Repulsor.

If they're AP-1, the number stays the same on the GUO, but drops to 432 for the Land Raider or 288 for the Repulsor.
If they're AP-2, 288 for the Raider, 216 for the Repuslor.
If you manage to net AP-3 on your Bolters, then the Raider takes 216 and the Repulsor is FINALLY less durable than a GUO, with 173 shots needed to kill.

They also have guns. The GUO can take a gun, but it's 7" range.
The GUO is also slower.

Edit: GUO is also 18 wounds, so can't hide behind Obscuring terrain.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/15 14:37:09


Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in us
Omnipotent Necron Overlord






Pretty sure the GUO can take exaulted abilities...Then as a result becomes much more durable.

Not sure why the GUO doesn't have a 3+ save???

If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: