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.

That's even worse! Properly priced BS1 is better than properly priced BS10 for tank hunting!

How is that worse?

BS1 ONLY hits on a 6, so if it is fairly priced (which nothing ever is but we can't make the assumption it is cheaper or more expensive) it gains a free benefit that BS10 does not, since BS10 hits on 2+ and re-roll hits on 2+, but if neither is a 6, then it doesn't get to strike on the Penetrating hit table.

Nothing has BS1.

Actually I forget. It's been a while since I've played and we've changed our Hull Down rules a couple of times. I'll have to check with our designated 'keeper' of the rulebook to check.

It's an example. BS2 has 50/50 chance of making 6s when they hit, BS3; 33/66, BS4; 25/75, BS5; 20/80, ect...

EDIT : Forgot a 2!

I know I'm late to the party but...

I think the gorgon, valdor, malcador and macharius are too light and generally too small to be considered superheavy tanks. As best as I can tell they're in the same class as land raiders, but that's my opinion. I don't believe fixing these superheavies are as simple as re-adjusting points; I think they need full rule rewrites.

First I think rather than using their slightly larger "mass" to justify them as super heavies it should be used to justify higher armor values. Because of this gray spot between super heavy and large "standard" there is this readjusting of effectiveness. What I mean by that is, in the hypothetical a land raider might be rewritten as a super heavy with structure points and only armor 14/14/13 but still be 250pts. That example maybe a stretch but thats the general idea I'm talking about here.

With the exception of the twin linked mega bolter, I don't think any of the weapons are overly powerful.

The gorgon... even with 50 man transport capacity its lack of weapons means it should have better armor and a decent move. Even with those two things, the lack of weapons says it should not exceed 175pts.

The malcador and variants should come in similarly if not less than the Demolisher, depending on how its armor values are tweaked.

The macharius comes closest in my mind to a super heavy out of the lot, but its big weapons really aren't that much bigger than a russ'. You go from a battle cannon 2 hb and a lascannon to a battle cannon that re-rolls wounds losing the lascannon for twin linked heavy stubber... I think its worth more than a standard russ not by much going by weapons.

If they're not Super-Heavies then they can die in a single shot... and that's just not worth 200+ points. Land Raiders occupy a unique section of the game being AV14/14/14, mounting good sized weapons and having a transport capacity. They're meant to be a cut above everything else because they're so advanced.

Trying to put 'big tanks' in the same league as the Land Raider can't work because as soon as they are able to be killed in a single shot, you're going to be better of bringing the smaller ones. If a 200-250 point Macharius can die in a single shot, I'll pay a little more for two Russes - more durable.

Ok, Skinn, I checked. It's what I said the first time. If your pen roll is a natural 6, that shot can Penetrate, assuming it can penetrate to begin with.

So that benefits weaker weapons?

Lascannon v. Rhino, Front Armor (11) in Hull Down
Lascannon rolls a 4 to Pen, 9+3=12
Must roll on the Glancing Hit Table

Ork Rokkit Launcher v. Predator, Front Armor (13) in Hull Down
Rokkit Launcher rolls a 6 to Pen, 8+6=14
Can roll on the Penetrating Hit Table

See the imbalance? Is the Rokkit Launcher inherently going to hit a more vulnerable spot? Is the Lascannon less likely to penetrate because it is stronger?

I'm not saying your rule set is shart, I'm just saying it has an imbalance. Perhaps it is just the best solution in an otherwise bad situation? I would just give either the Defending Player (Rhino/Predator) roll another D6 for a 2+ Cover Save (same likelyhood) or the Assailing Player roll a "Good Shot" D6 needing a 6. Plus a Cover Save can still be denied by weapons that deny Cover Saves.

Saves stop the hit completely - and I hate the way 5th Ed does it 50% of all fire just being ignored. With this way, I know there are imbalances, but if you fail to penetrate... you can still glance!

And you could just as well say that in those examples, the Lascannon rolled a 12 and the Rokkit rolled a 14, so the Rokkit hit 'harder'. And I don't have a problem with higher rolls meaning more.

The reason this came about is actually nothing to do with 5th Ed though, it was the comparison between 3rd and 4th.

In 3rd cover was all or nothing. If you were Hull Down, guess what, you were only ever going to be glanced. There wasn't a way around that except finding a different angle for the shot.

In 4th, Hull Down just meant that you were glanced half the time for sure, and then penetrated or glanced the other half of the time. It didn't really do a lot.

We wanted to find a middle ground - a way of making cover (and Smoke, and Skimmers Moving Fast) durable for staying in cover/hiding in smoke/moving as fast as they could, but at the same time ensure that any weapon to get passed that - sometimes you hit something dead on even when moving fast, sometimes you get lucky and plug a rocket right into the centre of a smoke cloud, etc. That's where the 6 thing came from. Now any weapon can do it, has an equal chance (it's always a 6).

Is it perfect? No. But it works, works well, and has done for years now.

Sorry, Cover Save wasn't just to "Down Grade" the shot to Glance, like in 4th Edition, not null the munition out completely. I agree, even half of a tank is still pretty hard to miss. Then again, TANK ARE SCARY!!! And even a Rhino can have super hard spots, or their vulnerable spots are in cover, either way, realistically it can kinda balance out. I would rather vehicles be less likely to be destroyed in general, and damn tough in an assault (which was really the original reason for tank, something light and medium infantry couldn't harm). I just don't like the idea of weapons that may only be able to BARELY penetrate being just as able to destroy as weapons that could obliterate that same vehicle (remember, the Lascannon v. Rhino and Rokkit Launcher v. Predator was just an example). I think this is something that can be fixed rather easily, but to each his own.

aka_mythos wrote:I think the gorgon, valdor, malcador and macharius are too light and generally too small to be considered superheavy tanks. As best as I can tell they're in the same class as land raiders, but that's my opinion. I don't believe fixing these superheavies are as simple as re-adjusting points; I think they need full rule rewrites.

First I think rather than using their slightly larger "mass" to justify them as super heavies it should be used to justify higher armor values. Because of this gray spot between super heavy and large "standard" there is this readjusting of effectiveness. What I mean by that is, in the hypothetical a land raider might be rewritten as a super heavy with structure points and only armor 14/14/13 but still be 250pts. That example maybe a stretch but thats the general idea I'm talking about here.

The Malcador Defender and to a lesser extent the Annihilator pretty much need the superheavy tank firing and targeting rules to stay viable due to the nonsynergistic nature of their weapons. The Defender's heavy bolters are placed in such a manner that being able to engage multiple targets with them apart from the demolisher cannon is the entire raison d'etre of the vehicle. Being a more heavily armored conventional tank wouldn't actually make either of them a better vehicle as a whole, they'd just suck in a different way, by being hamstrung by not being able to use more than one third of their armament per turn even in the best case scenario.

Also, I'd say the Gorgon is definitely large enough to be counted as a superheavy, its footprint on the table is on par with the Baneblade chassis, as this picture shows.

It's all bling though! It has the same Chassis as the Macharius, just with extra stuff stuck on around the sides. No doubt part of 'Pimp my Tank'.

But I agree, it's not just a 'heavy tank'. It needs to be a Super-Heavy. Even the Macharius, which is much smaller when you take all that crap from the Gorgon off, is still much bigger than a Russ. You can swap the turrets between a Baneblade and Macharius and they don't look out of place or oversized. The Twin-Vanq one even looks good on a Baneblade hull!

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Skinnattittar wrote:At any rate, the validity of any of DD's comments is not the subject of this thread either, in my opinion.

perhaps someone should start a thread discussing people such as DD and what best ways to embarrass them on that internet.

Oh, because I said that 100 pts was to much and 50 might be better? Yeah, at least I was on topic.

In all fairness DD raised an acceptable point giving a different level of discount for superheavies to the orginal poster. While I rather like H.B.M.C. and his contribution here he was out of line to attack DD just for making this point, it was a case of hate the messenger and ignore the message.
If someone else said that the superheavies are only 50pts overcosted would it be trolling? No it would not, so please spare your collective wrath for when people actually troll, to attack DD for who is reputed to be is not fair. Especially as he has shown good restraint by not coming back and trolling anyone who offended him. I was a bit disturbed by the rather rude capitalised name given him and with how readily it was explained and agreed with, it declares him wrong forever and with no course for redress. Sorry, that is not on.

I run a Plaguetower of Nurgle, and unless the rules are to apply to this specific family of vehicles, I can say that it might throw things even more out of balance. It doesn't need any more survivability. There's always the options of adding an outer force field that is AV 14 all around and must be broken before the actual vehicle can be hit. That way it's kinda beefy, but also kinda destructible too (and if you don't bring something that kills AV14 to an apocalypse game, what were you really trying to accomplish?).

H.B.M.C. wrote:If they're not Super-Heavies then they can die in a single shot... and that's just not worth 200+ points. Land Raiders occupy a unique section of the game being AV14/14/14, mounting good sized weapons and having a transport capacity. They're meant to be a cut above everything else because they're so advanced.

Trying to put 'big tanks' in the same league as the Land Raider can't work because as soon as they are able to be killed in a single shot, you're going to be better of bringing the smaller ones. If a 200-250 point Macharius can die in a single shot, I'll pay a little more for two Russes - more durable.

That is why I started my post saying that rather than using mass to justify "super heavy" use mass to justify a higher armor value. Two fully equipped Russ' are almost 400pts, more than a few more points. The ideal power range for one of these heavy tanks would be somewhere in between the survival and lethality of two leman russes.

Agamemnon2 wrote:

aka_mythos wrote:I think the gorgon, valdor, malcador and macharius are too light and generally too small to be considered superheavy tanks. As best as I can tell they're in the same class as land raiders, but that's my opinion. I don't believe fixing these superheavies are as simple as re-adjusting points; I think they need full rule rewrites.

First I think rather than using their slightly larger "mass" to justify them as super heavies it should be used to justify higher armor values. Because of this gray spot between super heavy and large "standard" there is this readjusting of effectiveness. What I mean by that is, in the hypothetical a land raider might be rewritten as a super heavy with structure points and only armor 14/14/13 but still be 250pts. That example maybe a stretch but thats the general idea I'm talking about here.

The Malcador Defender and to a lesser extent the Annihilator pretty much need the superheavy tank firing and targeting rules to stay viable due to the nonsynergistic nature of their weapons. The Defender's heavy bolters are placed in such a manner that being able to engage multiple targets with them apart from the demolisher cannon is the entire raison d'etre of the vehicle. Being a more heavily armored conventional tank wouldn't actually make either of them a better vehicle as a whole, they'd just suck in a different way, by being hamstrung by not being able to use more than one third of their armament per turn even in the best case scenario.

Also, I'd say the Gorgon is definitely large enough to be counted as a superheavy, its footprint on the table is on par with the Baneblade chassis, as this picture shows.

I think a lot of these tanks could just be covered by special rules rather than making them more than they really should be. I agree the gorgon is large enough to be superheavy, by virtue of common chassis the macharius should be too. I concede that. I still think the other tanks though aren't "heavy" enough to be super heavies.

When you look at the Malcador, I think its important to ignore the FW rules and just look at what it is. The simple fact is its the same size as a Landraider, so should it really be a superheavy? The monolith is larger than the malcador, not superheavy. The Malcador is a larger older tank than the leman russ; in the 40k universe the backwards way with technology that doesn't say too much.

I think as a non-superheavy the Malcador should be:
220pts; Armor 14/14/12
Lumbering Behemoth. Gun crews: May target up to two separate units.
Upgrade to Malcador Annihilator for +20 points; Malcador Defender +30pts
"The Defender"- For the purpose of determining how many weapons maybe fired in its shooting phase the 4 turret heavy bolters count as a single weapon; for all other purposes they are separate weapons.

I'd say now that given the way the russ has gone, how about leaving the points for the malcador (and varients), and structure points etc. alone but raising front armour to 14. would make it a lot more survivable (so long as its facing the right way).

the exception to this is the valdor, I'm currently looking at its rules, it needs front armour 14 but also the laser needs a bigger template, currently its a longer range demolisher cannon using the small blast fired by a gaurdsman (so it will scatter off). either that or say any vehicle unter the template (not just the centre) takes the s10 hit.?

aka_mythos wrote:Two fully equipped Russ' are almost 400pts, more than a few more points. The ideal power range for one of these heavy tanks would be somewhere in between the survival and lethality of two leman russes.

And if you fully equip them (which I assume means Plasma Sponsons) then the pair out gun a Macharius and out-do it in durability. If you don't go the full way with PC sponsons, they're 300 for the pair, plus a bit more for HBs. If you got for 340, you still outgun the Macharius (2 Battlecannons + 6 HBs vs 2 Battlecannons, 2 HBs, 1 TL-Stubber). Macharius cannot be a regular tank, as there are tanks that are better than it for less points (even with structure points that's the case - Macharius' are enough to be a single HS slot in a Guard army and it wouldn't break a thing) and making it just a tank would mean that it would never live long enough to see it's 3rd turn on the table.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

aka_mythos wrote:Two fully equipped Russ' are almost 400pts, more than a few more points. The ideal power range for one of these heavy tanks would be somewhere in between the survival and lethality of two leman russes.

And if you fully equip them (which I assume means Plasma Sponsons) then the pair out gun a Macharius and out-do it in durability. If you don't go the full way with PC sponsons, they're 300 for the pair, plus a bit more for HBs. If you got for 340, you still outgun the Macharius (2 Battlecannons + 6 HBs vs 2 Battlecannons, 2 HBs, 1 TL-Stubber). Macharius cannot be a regular tank, as there are tanks that are better than it for less points (even with structure points that's the case - Macharius' are enough to be a single HS slot in a Guard army and it wouldn't break a thing) and making it just a tank would mean that it would never live long enough to see it's 3rd turn on the table.

I stopped talking about the Macharius... I was refering to the malcador. Set aside its rules for a minute and look at what it is. Maybe the model should be different, but thats a different issue. The fact is the way the model is its not large enough to be more. This maybe just a matter of the short comings and inadequacies of the 40k system. Just because a tank "should" be something doesn't mean it gets to be something it isn't. The leman russ is a decent tank. My point is that any normal tank larger than leman russ but isn't a superheavy should probably come somewhere in between having two Leman Russ'. That means a Heavy Battle tank that is generally comparable to a Land Raider but with the obvious Imperial Guard weapons. The macharius is a light superheavy... but the others are more appropriate in filling all the range in between.

I want to note something, what you're saying about the macharius and some of these other tanks are valid, but the crucial fact is there is a reason these tanks were considered obsolete or too difficult to produce. When heavy battle tanks can be taken out in a single hit thats when your army starts fielding even larger and heavier tanks or more numerous lighter tanks. These tanks are obsolete and the imperium has taken the logical course of action if one is faced a tank becoming antiquated.

Well the Macharius isn't an old design - it's a design made on planets that aren't allowed to make Baneblades - but, yes, the Malcador is an old design.

. I would rather vehicles be less likely to be destroyed in general, and damn tough in an assault (which was really the original reason for tank, something light and medium infantry couldn't harm)

Tanks should be utterly raped by infantry the way it has been since the invention of cheap anti armour weapons I think the current rules suit this well.

@ Glowgos : So nobody in the future figures out how to defeat cheap-anti-armor weapons like we have already today?

Those "cheap" anti-armor weapons, like armor-penetrating RPG rounds, have little to no effect on the modern generation of tanks. Even the Abrams, who's armor is derived from 1970's technology, defeats the vast majority to almost exclusion of "cheap" anti-armor infantry borne weapons. Even the venerable Dragon and Javelin are unable to punch a hole in the Abrams, German Leopard II, and the British Challenger II, which is reputed to be almost impervious to anything but artillery type anti-armor weapons.

So DO infantry ranged anti-armor weapons rape tanks in the modern era : Modern ERA tanks? Yes. Latest and greatest tanks : No. I think the war in Iraq and Afghanistan shows this pretty well. Strikers and even HMMWVs are able to take multiple strikes from light "cheap" anti-armor weapons of their same era and keep rolling mission capable, even heavy anti-tank mines are becoming less and less effective at destroying tanks, more likely to just disable or immobilize them.

Its a back and forth everytime someone figures out a way to armor someone figures out a way to break through it, and the cycle continues. As far as battle tanks are concerned the advent of cheap anti-armor man portable weapons go... in all the wars fought in the last 25+ years, no Abrams tank has been destroyed by such a weapon. More have been destroyed by friendly fire than the numerous hits they've taken from that type of weapon.

The lascannon is man portable in 40k and is one of the best anti-armor weapons. I think this aspect of the conversation is moot, since all the stats are generally fixed relativistically.

I think the question of this thread has become: "How do you rewrite the rules to allow a more realistic survivability?"

Sometimes I think all tanks should have something like structure points or wounds... one hit kills seem to make tanks softer than some multi-wound infantry.