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
Decrepit Dakkanaut







Eldenfirefly wrote:
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.


This is how it was in earlier editions.

Tell me why tanks shouldn't be immune to loads of CC attacks again?

It's not like 30 people hitting an M1 tank with ball-peen hammers will equate to one person hitting it with a Thunderhammer....
   
Made in us
Tunneling Trygon




Mexico

Because most of those CC attacks come from super-human warriors, aliens and daemons.

And I recall loads of S4 melee attacks being able to glance most vehicles to death, so depends on the edition.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







 Tyran wrote:
Because most of those CC attacks come from super-human warriors, aliens and daemons.

And I recall loads of S4 melee attacks being able to glance most vehicles to death, so depends on the edition.


S4 shooting attacks could also glance those vehicles to death - as long as they were in the correct facing.

And so what? The tanks are made of super-unobtainium-armor that incorporates hexagrammatic wards. If they wanted those creatures to hit harder then a boltgun round would impact the armor, then they (shockingly) would give them better stats than a boltgun round.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
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.


Hurricane bolter bikes? But yeah, whatever, if you want to waste bolter shots against a Mek gun, enjoy. Without cover it takes 40.5 bolter shots at BS3 to kill 1 Mek Gun. Congrats, your 40.5 bolter shots killed 40pts of Mek gun.

Against T8 you had no problem shooting them off the board you say? yeah, that isn't exactly true is it? a T8 monster/vehicle with a 3+ save takes 27 shots just to get 1 wound off (27 shots, 18 hits, 3 wounds 1dmg) since most T8 units have 14+ wounds you are saying you had no problem unloading 378+ shots a turn from bolters? Well, if that is the case, i'm pretty sure the game would be over against no vehicle lists insanely fast since those same 378 shots kill 21 Primaris Marines a turn.
 ClockworkZion wrote:

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.


Ah, well that is moving the goal posts a bit, I was specifically talking about small arms and mentioned a plethora of them specifically (bolters, shootas, las guns). As far as Heavy bolters/auto-cannons. A Heavy Bolter is in a wonderfully terrible place right now in terms of meta, in a GT awhile back an Ork player won, and they did so because the entire meta brought anti-marine weapons D2+ with lots of AP. The only game that ork came close to losing was against a SOB list that brought a fethload of Heavy bolters, this gave the SOB player a lot of anti-horde firepower while simultaneously giving them a TON of anti-elite infantry and anti-vehicle firepower since at S5 -1AP and D2 it actually does decent work for its price against most vehicles. A Single Heavy bolter on a BS3+ platform averages 3 shots, 2 hits, and against a T6-9 vehicle thats 0.66 wounds for 0.33 unsaved wounds or 0.66dmg Not bad for a 10pt weapon system. Comparatively a Bolter is 2 shots, 1.33 hits, 0.44 wounds and 0.15dmg So the heavy bolter is more than 3x more effective and costs significantly less than just using bolters (Heavy Bolter Marine is 28pts 3+ marines with bolters would be 64+pts)

So the real question. Why did GW buff the heavy bolter to be D2? simply put? because GW gave the largest single action in the game 2 wounds each and forgot to realize most armies didn't have an answer to 18-20pt infantry with T4 2 wounds and a 3+ save except to spam anti armor weapons and things similar to the Heavy bolter which became a mainstay of most forces. You won't hear me complain about nerfing the Heavy bolter back to 1dmg.

The auto-cannon on the other hand. That isn't high rate of fire, its 2 shots (D3 for orkz) and 2D3 for Marines because SPEESE MEHREENS! Its itself a 10pt upgrade and against most vehicles does similar dmg to vehicles. 2 shots, 1.33 hits, 0.67 wounds and 0.33 unsaved to go right back to 0.67ish dmg a turn. It does better vs T5 and T6 but not by an appreciable amount and it does the same at T8



 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
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord





In My Lab

 Xenomancers wrote:
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???
Pretty sure you can use various strats to make your vehicles more durable too. Not to mention, they’re a lot killier.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Nids are the only army I can really think of that has some bad monsters
Heheheheh. "Some".

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

 
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







 Tyran wrote:
Because most of those CC attacks come from super-human warriors, aliens and daemons...


And...in-universe the tank's armour isn't designed to account for the fact that most everyone on the battlefield is superhuman...because...?

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 us
Tunneling Trygon




Mexico

 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Tyran wrote:
Because most of those CC attacks come from super-human warriors, aliens and daemons...


And...in-universe the tank's armour isn't designed to account for the fact that most everyone on the battlefield is superhuman...because...?

Considering most of those tanks are WW1 designs, I wouldn't trust their engineering to be honest

And in-universe we even have example of Daemon infantry being very good at killing tanks in melee combat in Godblight.
   
Made in au
Regular Dakkanaut




Honestly, I think the simplest way is to probably just buff their toughness.

Something like:

Increase to T8:
- Hammerheads
- Predators

Increase to T9:
- Baneblades
- Knights (you kinda have to buff them if you buff everything else)
- Landraiders
- Leman Russ Tanks
- Macharius Tanks
- Malcadors
- Stompa

Obviously there's probably more that could be added here these are just the first ones I could think of.

Maybe then just tweak their wounds slightly (I think I mentioned it in another thread). Basically any vehicle with 11 wounds should go up to 12, Leman Russ tanks could go up to 14, Landraiders to 18, Macharius Tanks to 24, and Baneblades to 28.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/06/16 00:15:07


 
   
Made in us
Boosting Black Templar Biker






That's a very reasonable solution and easy to playtest to see how well it will work out. I'm always curious how they playtest at GW if it involves minor tweaks like this.
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran



London

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Eldenfirefly wrote:
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.


This is how it was in earlier editions.

Tell me why tanks shouldn't be immune to loads of CC attacks again?

It's not like 30 people hitting an M1 tank with ball-peen hammers will equate to one person hitting it with a Thunderhammer....


I would be quite happy with the toughness system changing to:-

Str more than double Toughness - No wound possible. (No more lasguns wounding tanks...)
Str double Toughness - 6+ to wound
Str less than Toughness - 5+ to wound
Str the same as toughness - 4+ to wound
Str higher than Toughness - 3+ to wound
Str double Toughness - 2+ to wound
Str more than double toughness - Auto wound (yes lascannons vaporise Guardsmen)



Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
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.


Good gods yes. And you would be amazed how much people push back against this idea. So I dutifully take 4 hours to play a game with them as each 50 point squad gets to fire 37/36+D6 str 3 shots pointlessly at the only target in range, a big tough tank.

Note the IG rules should really aim at speeding that army up. For example - FRFSRF, make it lasguns auto hit, rather than double their BS4+ shots. Same number of wound rolls, but so much faster...

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/18 14:27:17


 
   
Made in us
Boosting Black Templar Biker






The_Real_Chris wrote:

I would be quite happy with the toughness system changing to:-

Str more than double Toughness - No wound possible. (No more lasguns wounding tanks...)
Str double Toughness - 6+ to wound
Str less than Toughness - 5+ to wound
Str the same as toughness - 4+ to wound
Str higher than Toughness - 3+ to wound
Str double Toughness - 2+ to wound
Str more than double toughness - Auto wound (yes lascannons vaporise Guardsmen)

I'm a big fan of this, I'm going to try it as a house rule with our group.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/06/18 14:58:53


 
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






The_Real_Chris wrote:
I would be quite happy with the toughness system changing to:-

Str more than double Toughness - No wound possible. (No more lasguns wounding tanks...)
Str double Toughness - 6+ to wound
Str less than Toughness - 5+ to wound
Str the same as toughness - 4+ to wound
Str higher than Toughness - 3+ to wound
Str double Toughness - 2+ to wound
Str more than double toughness - Auto wound (yes lascannons vaporise Guardsmen)


I'm not sure I'm too fond of S7 auto-wounding T3 or S9 outwounding T4. But outside of that, sure, why not? At least it would give extremely high strength values a purpose.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/18 15:27:13


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
Regular Dakkanaut





Beaverton OR

I'm onboard with this new wounding system as well :-)
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran



London

 Jidmah wrote:


I'm not sure I'm too fond of S7 auto-wounding T3 or S9 outwounding T4. But outside of that, sure, why not? At least it would give extremely high strength values a purpose.


You haven't lived until you have vapourised a T3 unit with no saves with a MM...

We did that for speed along with a few other things, the rule mostly impacts of T3 units, T4 is very rarely affected. Does make things harder for guard and especially eldar (1/6th of the time).
   
Made in us
Dive-Bombin' Fighta-Bomba Pilot






In the name of the 9th edition simplicity of rules. how would adding to category vehicle "-1 to wound"

10000 points 7000
6000
5000
5000
2000
 
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






The_Real_Chris wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:


I'm not sure I'm too fond of S7 auto-wounding T3 or S9 outwounding T4. But outside of that, sure, why not? At least it would give extremely high strength values a purpose.


You haven't lived until you have vapourised a T3 unit with no saves with a MM...

We did that for speed along with a few other things, the rule mostly impacts of T3 units, T4 is very rarely affected. Does make things harder for guard and especially eldar (1/6th of the time).


I guess it depends on your armies. I'm playing orks, so I have easy access to S10+ in melee, which would suddenly be auto-wounding marines, terminators and the like. Not that they couldn't use the boost currently, but it doesn't seem that healthy.
On the flip side, against my DG everyone is T3 and I would be auto-wounding eldar and humans with heavy flamers.

So yes, the idea is good, but would also crank up lethality by a lot, not something I think is that good for the game as it is now. Such a chance would require a lot of re-evaluation of rules and points across all armies.

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 ca
Dakka Veteran





 Unit1126PLL wrote:
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).

Untrue.

The immersion argument is used incredibly selectively. For some strange, inexplicable reason Tank Gang doesn't have their immersion ruined by 12" weapon rangers or special characters who show up to frontier skirmishes.

It's not a complicated issue. There are people who like tanks, and they want them to be good, so they offer a bad faith immersion argument that, suspiciously, isn't reflected anywhere else in their gameplay preferences. I would say the tank likers roughly split in two ways; weird self-styled history buffs who think irl war stuff is badass, and people who actively want a unit with complete immunity to a certain percentage of their average opponent's army, because that's a very easy style of unit to play with.
   
Made in us
Painlord Titan Princeps of Slaanesh




No offense, but I'm tired of hearing the complaint that "X (special character) wouldn't be appearing in this little skirmish." People tend to forget that the little skirmish that they are playing may be part of a larger battle taking place "off screen". Of course the camera will focus on the "Big Boys" so there you have it, the reason character X always seems to be at every battle.

end rant
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







 G00fySmiley wrote:
In the name of the 9th edition simplicity of rules. how would adding to category vehicle "-1 to wound"


So...fix the to-wound table, or add a special rule that has the effect of changing the to-wound table without actually changing the to-wound table?

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 au
Regular Dakkanaut





Str more than double Toughness - No wound possible. (No more lasguns wounding tanks...)
Str double Toughness - 6+ to wound
Str less than Toughness - 5+ to wound
Str the same as toughness - 4+ to wound
Str higher than Toughness - 3+ to wound
Str double Toughness - 2+ to wound
Str more than double toughness - Auto wound (yes lascannons vaporise Guardsmen)


This just seems like a targeted nerf to GEQ’s shooting. For anything S4 or higher it changes nothing. A bolter will still wound a Knight. An Ork shoota will still wound Land Raiders.

Going from top to bottom it’s going to kill anything T5 or lower. New T5 Orks? Not a problem my demolisher auto-wounds all of them. New Sisters walkers? My railgun auto-wounds them. Terminators? Missile launcher auto-wounds.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/18 21:57:45


 
   
Made in us
Daemonic Dreadnought




The dark hollows of Kentucky

 Jidmah wrote:
The_Real_Chris wrote:
I would be quite happy with the toughness system changing to:-

Str more than double Toughness - No wound possible. (No more lasguns wounding tanks...)
Str double Toughness - 6+ to wound
Str less than Toughness - 5+ to wound
Str the same as toughness - 4+ to wound
Str higher than Toughness - 3+ to wound
Str double Toughness - 2+ to wound
Str more than double toughness - Auto wound (yes lascannons vaporise Guardsmen)


I'm not sure I'm too fond of S7 auto-wounding T3 or S9 outwounding T4. But outside of that, sure, why not? At least it would give extremely high strength values a purpose.

Yeah, my Contemptor auto-wounding anything T6 or lower in melee would be great, but.......this doesn't "make tanks better". It only stops lasguns from being capable of wounding tanks, and we know trying to kill a T7-8 vehicle with S3 weapons s already a waste of time. This doesn't affect true AT weapons, or the "chip damage" offenders, which are S5-7. They'll all work the same. The problem is that the best AT weapons are currently underpriced, so it's too easy to spam them. I don't like lasguns being able to wound tanks either, but no one is leaving their tanks at home because of lasguns.
   
Made in us
Painlord Titan Princeps of Slaanesh




Maybe the answer is to change the weapon damage and add an ability. Call it "armor piercing (X)"- if this weapon wounds a model with the vehicle keyword then add X to the damge..

Then you lower the damage of weapons in general. The X could be an actual variable that changes with each weapon or it could just be a fixed amount. Make most small arms D1 heavy weapons D2 and truly destructive weapons D3. I'm just spit balling the numbers but you get the gist of my idea (I hope).
   
Made in us
Battlewagon Driver with Charged Engine




Between Alpha and Omega, and a little to the left

 Altruizine wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
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).

Untrue.

The immersion argument is used incredibly selectively. For some strange, inexplicable reason Tank Gang doesn't have their immersion ruined by 12" weapon rangers or special characters who show up to frontier skirmishes.

It's not a complicated issue. There are people who like tanks, and they want them to be good, so they offer a bad faith immersion argument that, suspiciously, isn't reflected anywhere else in their gameplay preferences. I would say the tank likers roughly split in two ways; weird self-styled history buffs who think irl war stuff is badass, and people who actively want a unit with complete immunity to a certain percentage of their average opponent's army, because that's a very easy style of unit to play with.

I was actually about to bring this up myself. it's notable how much the argument of "immersion" focuses purely on mechanics that would positively effect their favored units, meanwhile things like combat speeds, vehicle damage charts, or the non-interactivity of crew and embarked units never get up. You can tell by their use of language, using "Tank" and Vehicles interchangeably or the focus on "small arms fire" even thought that includes apparently more than they let on.

The use of tank implies something much tougher, but the AV system included things like ork buggies, DE venoms, SM land speeders, Eldar war walkers, and IG scout sentinels, all of which are thinly armored vehicles with exposed crew. Similarly,sSmall arms fire is usually pointed at str 3 but seems to often include stuff like bolters, which are rapid fire .50 cal rifles that fire rocket propelled armored piercing exploisve rounds. Those would not be considered anti-infantry only weapons by any modern standards, except by sadists. Similarly, the common suggestion of -1 damage without min (which aside from the balance issue or making things like autocannons pathetic) precludes things like assault cannons and flamers. The former is high strength both in game and lore and would not be considered "small arms" by anyone, while the flamer is considered anti-infantry by people in the game. In reality, the flamethrower is one of the most terrifying anti-everything weapons used in war, because no amount of super unobtanium with quantum time weave armor is going to protect a tank if it is on ing fire and the crew inside is burning to death.

It feels like the use of realism and immersion in these arguments kind fall in the same category as when it's used in a lot of Modern Military Shooters. It's a façade of realism still built on arcade sensibilities, pushed to sell itself on a "fantasy" (as someone had put it earlier in the thread) of how people things it works. There's a lot of abstraction still being used to get a desired result (immunity or near immunity to most of the game, in this case), and I'd argue it feed into, rather than fixes, one of the actual core problems with 40k and that it's a game where the only interaction with your opponent's army is killing them.

Want to help support my plastic addiction? I sell stories about humans fighting to survive in a space age frontier.
Lord Harrab wrote:"Gimme back my leg-bone! *wack* Ow, don't hit me with it!" commonly uttered by Guardsman when in close combat with Orks.

Bonespitta's Badmoons 1441 pts.  
   
Made in ca
Secretive Dark Angels Veteran




Vancouver, BC

 Altruizine wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
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).

Untrue.

The immersion argument is used incredibly selectively. For some strange, inexplicable reason Tank Gang doesn't have their immersion ruined by 12" weapon rangers or special characters who show up to frontier skirmishes.

It's not a complicated issue. There are people who like tanks, and they want them to be good, so they offer a bad faith immersion argument that, suspiciously, isn't reflected anywhere else in their gameplay preferences. I would say the tank likers roughly split in two ways; weird self-styled history buffs who think irl war stuff is badass, and people who actively want a unit with complete immunity to a certain percentage of their average opponent's army, because that's a very easy style of unit to play with.

I beg to differ.

I want full fog of war, staggered reinforcements by unit type, and either tables 4 to 6 times larger or a drastic reduction in scale. Give me off-map artillery, planes that act like planes, and weapons ranges that actually make sense with harsh cover, range, and LoS penalties to show why maximum range =/= effective range. If a game of 40k starts to take an entire weekend to play and campaigns worry about supply lines and attrition you're starting to make a war game and not a glorified series of skirmishes that have suffered from scale creep.

I also want tanks to shrug off small arms, armor facings, templates, impactful morale, flanking that gives tangible bonuses and other immersive rules that 40k has ditched in favor of courting as many players as possible.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/19 02:43:44


 
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







 Luke_Prowler wrote:
 Altruizine wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
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).

Untrue.

The immersion argument is used incredibly selectively. For some strange, inexplicable reason Tank Gang doesn't have their immersion ruined by 12" weapon rangers or special characters who show up to frontier skirmishes.

It's not a complicated issue. There are people who like tanks, and they want them to be good, so they offer a bad faith immersion argument that, suspiciously, isn't reflected anywhere else in their gameplay preferences. I would say the tank likers roughly split in two ways; weird self-styled history buffs who think irl war stuff is badass, and people who actively want a unit with complete immunity to a certain percentage of their average opponent's army, because that's a very easy style of unit to play with.

I was actually about to bring this up myself. it's notable how much the argument of "immersion" focuses purely on mechanics that would positively effect their favored units, meanwhile things like combat speeds, vehicle damage charts, or the non-interactivity of crew and embarked units never get up. You can tell by their use of language, using "Tank" and Vehicles interchangeably or the focus on "small arms fire" even thought that includes apparently more than they let on.

The use of tank implies something much tougher, but the AV system included things like ork buggies, DE venoms, SM land speeders, Eldar war walkers, and IG scout sentinels, all of which are thinly armored vehicles with exposed crew. Similarly,sSmall arms fire is usually pointed at str 3 but seems to often include stuff like bolters, which are rapid fire .50 cal rifles that fire rocket propelled armored piercing exploisve rounds. Those would not be considered anti-infantry only weapons by any modern standards, except by sadists. Similarly, the common suggestion of -1 damage without min (which aside from the balance issue or making things like autocannons pathetic) precludes things like assault cannons and flamers. The former is high strength both in game and lore and would not be considered "small arms" by anyone, while the flamer is considered anti-infantry by people in the game. In reality, the flamethrower is one of the most terrifying anti-everything weapons used in war, because no amount of super unobtanium with quantum time weave armor is going to protect a tank if it is on ing fire and the crew inside is burning to death.

It feels like the use of realism and immersion in these arguments kind fall in the same category as when it's used in a lot of Modern Military Shooters. It's a façade of realism still built on arcade sensibilities, pushed to sell itself on a "fantasy" (as someone had put it earlier in the thread) of how people things it works. There's a lot of abstraction still being used to get a desired result (immunity or near immunity to most of the game, in this case), and I'd argue it feed into, rather than fixes, one of the actual core problems with 40k and that it's a game where the only interaction with your opponent's army is killing them.


Immersion is not about realism. It isn't about the things that would actually happen if we put all these things together in the real world, it's about the game being consistent with a given player's subjective sense of "that doesn't make sense!". It makes perfect sense to you that .50-cal rocket-propelled grenade launchers are viable AT, sure. It makes no sense to me that in a universe where there are whole armies of people running around with .50-cal rocket-propelled grenade launchers as their sidearms nobody in the entire setting has gotten it in their heads that maybe developing armour that's impervious to .50-cal rocket-propelled grenade launchers might be a good idea. The problem isn't that any specific weapon with specific fluff is an efficient anti-tank weapon, the problem is that the lore tells me "this is an anti-tank gun" and "this is not an anti-tank gun" and then makes the non-anti-tank gun just as effective against tanks as the anti-tank gun, thereby rendering the anti-tank gun pointless. (I know GW's buffed actual AT a lot in 9th, but they haven't buffed tanks at all, so we've ended up with an awful attempt to please everyone by making the non-AT gun good at killing tanks, the AT gun *really* good at killing tanks, and leaving the tanks (="vehicles", ="monsters", whatever term you prefer for the T7/3+ to T8/2+ statline) feeling incredibly squishy.) If you think that's fine and tanks feel great to you that's great! Have fun! But don't tell me that my sense of verisimilitude isn't "real" or "doesn't make sense" because it doesn't line up with yours.

"-1 damage with no minimum" is an awful solution to the problem, yes, but the actual problem comes from GW's inability to do math when writing the 8e Indexes. If you wanted to fix the problem you'd have to re-stat almost the entire game. People shouting about things they think are wrong on Dakka are very averse to actually sitting down and doing the legwork to fix it, so they come up with a one-sentence patch that sort of addresses the problem but creates a whole bunch of new problems and hold that up as "if GW just implemented my simple solution everything would be fine!". We've seen it with "alternating activations!" (with no more detail on how to implement it, usually), "change to d10s!" (with no concept of whether they'd actually change the dice math, or just map old stats 1:1 to new stats and create the exact same game with different dice), and a host of other "fast fixes" over the years, this is no different. It isn't a serious proposal.

TL;DR: I disagree with your claim that there isn't a problem or that vehicle fans are arguing in bad faith, but I agree with you that their proposed solution is silly.

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 de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
The_Real_Chris wrote:
I would be quite happy with the toughness system changing to:-

Str more than double Toughness - No wound possible. (No more lasguns wounding tanks...)
Str double Toughness - 6+ to wound
Str less than Toughness - 5+ to wound
Str the same as toughness - 4+ to wound
Str higher than Toughness - 3+ to wound
Str double Toughness - 2+ to wound
Str more than double toughness - Auto wound (yes lascannons vaporise Guardsmen)


I'm not sure I'm too fond of S7 auto-wounding T3 or S9 outwounding T4. But outside of that, sure, why not? At least it would give extremely high strength values a purpose.

Yeah, my Contemptor auto-wounding anything T6 or lower in melee would be great, but.......this doesn't "make tanks better". It only stops lasguns from being capable of wounding tanks, and we know trying to kill a T7-8 vehicle with S3 weapons s already a waste of time. This doesn't affect true AT weapons, or the "chip damage" offenders, which are S5-7. They'll all work the same. The problem is that the best AT weapons are currently underpriced, so it's too easy to spam them. I don't like lasguns being able to wound tanks either, but no one is leaving their tanks at home because of lasguns.


Yeah, I think this is absolutely true. Tanks aren't dying to small arms fire at all, this mostly just a narrative driven by people who aren't even playing 9th.

What is killing tanks are high volumes of 2 damage shots, high damage weapons spammed on cheap platforms. Multimeltas mounted on blighthaulers, gladiator tanks or helbrutes are causing exactly zero problems because you are paying over 100+ points for them on a platform that you'd rather not throw away for a single round of shooting.
To enable low strength, low AP, low damage attacks to kill tanks they either need to get buffeded with +1 to wound (effectively no longer making them "small arms") and multiplied with other buffs like Endless Cacophony, or they need to be able to do mortal wounds in addition to their normal damage.

IMO the way to fix tanks is buff their wound count across the board to make the "spam 2 damage" option less appealing, but not worthless. Four plasma gunners should be able to damage a LRBT, but not melt it.
The other thing is that anti-tank weapons on cheap platforms need to become much more expensive. As long as unit like attack bikes or erradicators can wipe out a tank without as much as breaking a sweat from a safe distance, tanks will struggle.

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 it
Gargantuan Gargant




Italy

Yeah, do you want better tanks? Nerf anti tank weapons by increasing some points costs and removing combos to enhance them.

Also nerf to the ground those heavy infantries that compete with tanks. Because 3 dudes with T5 3W and 3+ save are more durable than a tank, and they shouldn't be. 60ppm eradicators without double tap ability would make SM tanks look better .

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/19 09:23:32



 
   
Made in ca
Legendary Master of the Chapter





 Blackie wrote:
Yeah, do you want better tanks? Nerf anti tank weapons by increasing some points costs and removing combos to enhance them.

Also nerf to the ground those heavy infantries that compete with tanks. Because 3 dudes with T5 3W and 3+ save are more durable than a tank, and they shouldn't be. 60ppm eradicators without double tap ability would make SM tanks look better .


you've hit the nail on the head without meaning to. the PROBLEM isn't so much elite infantry, the problem is that eltie infantry and tanks can effectively be countered by the same type of weapon. if tanks required you to bring 3+ damage weapons just to impact them (one could acheive this simply by having every tank reduce the damage taken by 2 to a minimum of zero, meaning you need 3 damage weapons to even scratch a tank) and suddenly you shift things, and no longer is an anti-heavy weapon infantry occupying the same niche as an anti-tank gun.

THAT is the fundamental problem with tanks.

it's not las canons and multi meltas that are the issue (those in sufficant numbers SHOULD kill tanks for the same reason boltguns in sufficant numbers should kill guardsmen) but rather that I can pack the same tools to deal with a tactical marine as I can a tank.

GW really needs to address the granualarity here, ESPECIALLY when there is a pretty minimal differance between a light tank and a heavy tank.

case in point, there's only 5 wounds and 1 toughness differance between a landraider and a predator.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/06/19 10:56:00


Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two 
   
Made in ca
Deranged Necron Destroyer






What about a rule for vehicles where all attacks must reroll any successful wound rolls?

Like, it's a big hit, and makes fishing for 6s not really work, but high S (traditionally anti tank) weapons wouldn't need to worry much.

Girl Gamers are the best! 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: