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.

Frankenberry wrote:I don't get why people bitched about having to roll a 6 to hit a vehicle that has moved. The vehicles are massive in 40k and I'm sure there would be a degree of not wanting to get crushed, at least for the humanoid armies.

I run a LR in almost every game I play and these new rules make it a guaranteed kill. Three glances and the thing is a wreck. If anything I have an issue with the hull points. I've never played against an army who couldn't kill a tank once they got into CC with it so this 'update' is crap in it's entirety. Glancing a MBT to death is utter gak, and yes. I'm biased.

I can say, having never melee'd ANY vehicle with ANYTHING in my army that this update does give my plucky guardsmen squads a chance. Here's to letting the weakest unit in the game get MVP via killing a tank with combat knives.

Stand by a highway with a 5 ft stick and try to hit a diesel truck goin 60, I'd bet it's pretty easy. Then add in the fact that MBTs are much wider and slower.

Try to find instances where MBTs are trying to get up close to the enemy . . . And you won't, they are forward artillery and up close is when they are most vulnerable. Doesn't take much to wreck the tank in a variety of ways.

Yours guardsmen aren't going to be killing any vehicles with their knives unless you know of some av9 vehicles, you are way over-reacting.

IRL, the last thing tanks want to do is get into a close quarters fight unsupported by infantry.

Tanks are extremely vulnerable at close range and can be more of a liability then an asset in a close quarters battle.

Close range fire from man portable anti-tank weapons or even getting boarded, having the hatch ripped off, and a frag grenade stuffed down the hatch.

[quote=Sasa0mg
Charging a vehicle that's moved flat out 24" or more should result in being sent to your ass because its obvious the vehicle is moving at extreme speed in all reality it would be like diving out in front of a truck or F1 car and trying to punch it.

Grey Templar wrote:IRL, the last thing tanks want to do is get into a close quarters fight unsupported by infantry.

Tanks are extremely vulnerable at close range and can be more of a liability then an asset in a close quarters battle.

Close range fire from man portable anti-tank weapons or even getting boarded, having the hatch ripped off, and a frag grenade stuffed down the hatch.

Much as this makes perfect sense on a realistic level, since weapon ranges in 40k are, owing to the necessity of fitting the game onto a 6 x 4 table, about 10% of what they should realistically be, the designers could be forgiven for cutting tanks a measure of slack to make them worth fielding (and thus to make those expensive plastic kits worth buying).

(I know I don't often give GW's hacks the benefit of the doubt, but this once I'll accept that the constraint is one they really can't avoid.)

Tanks arent worth taking? Experience says otherwise

nosferatu1001 wrote:Tanks arent worth taking? Experience says otherwise

Your reading comprehension. It fails.

Man, this thread should be re-titled, "The river of IG tears". God forbid the army that had leafblower lists and nigh unstoppable parking lots get knocked back a bit. You guys should get your hands on a Tyranid Codex and then laugh your silly tears away.

"Life is so hard with my buckets of pie plates and flyers that only my codex, ironically, has options to deal with."

Keep on cryin girlies!

Look, there seems to be some disconnect here. The idea that hitting vehicles is easier regardless of context is somehow a buff to assault armies is absurd. It's just as much a buff to a shooty army. That's the problem, I could play guard, sit on my ass all game shooting, eldar or dark eldar or orks can fly up the table on full attack and a single squad of guardsmen can saunter out of the line and grenade whatever vehicle, regardless of how fast it moved into a pile of slag.

Think about it, you're getting a whopping 6 inches of movement before disembark if you're an assault vehicle or open topped. If your boys are in a falcon or a rhino you're planning how many steps ahead just to get an assault off. If the enemy wrecks your transport, your boys that survive can't even assault in their turn. GW has gone out of its way to f**k assaulting units.

This edition is basically saying "don't ever go on the attack silly, just sit on your ass behind your aegis defense line and shoot like everyone else". It's bull***t.

wizardv12222 wrote:

=Sasa0mg
Charging a vehicle that's moved flat out 24" or more should result in being sent to your ass because its obvious the vehicle is moving at extreme speed in all reality it would be like diving out in front of a truck or F1 car and trying to punch it.

Couldn't disagree with this more.

Standard Infantry move 6", then can charge 12", pile in 3", then if they win combat move 6", they have moved (with some really good die rolls) 27". The problem I see here is you all think 24" is some how really fast and hard to hit, it can't be if normal humans could move that far in the same amount of time.

Why should a vehicle that has moved generally in a straight line supposed to be really hard to hit, but agile humans who may have moved as far, easy to hit?

I think you miss understand what I'm getting at here.
If you charge at a vehicle that is moving flat out what is highly likely to wind up happening? You get hit, you go flying. A Vehicle forsakes all or most of its shooting for bs1 snapfire for the sake of moving incredibly fast just to be intercepted by a melee unit that charge it? Excuse me for thinking thats a little odd but if you can run into a car going full speed and come out on top I would like to know how XD.

Also keep in mind the size difference between the troops and the vehicle is that the troops are highly likely to go on the underside of the vehicle as they charge it.
Yes in rule terms a player can with the right lucky rolls move extremely far if anything 'this' is what is currently broken the fact that you have people running as fast or faster then vehicles with less downside ontop of the fact they can apparently come toe to toe with a full speed vehicle.

Your trying to tell me that a DE fighter moving flat out 36" in hover isn't going fast? Its a fighter jet, it is going incredibly fast the point you bring up infantry can attempt to rival its speed just shows how broken infantry are and then to think they can dive in front of something like that and stop it as if it were just floating along nice and easy.

Or perhaps a unit of 5 wyches standing in the way of a landraider and coming out ontop while the land raider was moving full speed the turn before, you charge the front. At this point why you don't just go under the tracks is beyond me. And then to add it all you hit it as if it wasn't even moving very fast at all the turn before and can polish it off with 4 glancing grenades which is rather easy to accomplish and very possible and to top it all off you count as attacking the rear armour afaik which is even more stupid.

Sasa0mg wrote:

wizardv12222 wrote:

=Sasa0mg
Charging a vehicle that's moved flat out 24" or more should result in being sent to your ass because its obvious the vehicle is moving at extreme speed in all reality it would be like diving out in front of a truck or F1 car and trying to punch it.

Couldn't disagree with this more.

Standard Infantry move 6", then can charge 12", pile in 3", then if they win combat move 6", they have moved (with some really good die rolls) 27". The problem I see here is you all think 24" is some how really fast and hard to hit, it can't be if normal humans could move that far in the same amount of time.

Why should a vehicle that has moved generally in a straight line supposed to be really hard to hit, but agile humans who may have moved as far, easy to hit?

I think you miss understand what I'm getting at here.
If you charge at a vehicle that is moving flat out what is highly likely to wind up happening? You get hit, you go flying. A Vehicle forsakes all or most of its shooting for bs1 snapfire for the sake of moving incredibly fast just to be intercepted by a melee unit that charge it? Excuse me for thinking thats a little odd but if you can run into a car going full speed and come out on top I would like to know how XD.

Also keep in mind the size difference between the troops and the vehicle is that the troops are highly likely to go on the underside of the vehicle as they charge it.
Yes in rule terms a player can with the right lucky rolls move extremely far if anything 'this' is what is currently broken the fact that you have people running as fast or faster then vehicles with less downside ontop of the fact they can apparently come toe to toe with a full speed vehicle.

Your trying to tell me that a DE fighter moving flat out 36" in hover isn't going fast? Its a fighter jet, it is going incredibly fast the point you bring up infantry can attempt to rival its speed just shows how broken infantry are and then to think they can dive in front of something like that and stop it as if it were just floating along nice and easy.

Or perhaps a unit of 5 wyches standing in the way of a landraider and coming out ontop while the land raider was moving full speed the turn before, you charge the front. At this point why you don't just go under the tracks is beyond me. And then to add it all you hit it as if it wasn't even moving very fast at all the turn before and can polish it off with 4 glancing grenades which is rather easy to accomplish and very possible and to top it all off you count as attacking the rear armour afaik which is even more stupid.

I don't understand all this talk of everyone gettin run over when they charge a vehicle. Like anyone would charge a moving vehicle from the front, lolz. You'd go to it's side as it passes, tanks can't turn unless they are moving pretty slow, or it's a very wide turn. It'd be easy to move out of the way and side swipe it or lob a melta bomb at it. You guys need to accept that tanks in close fighting suck. They are mobile, forward artillery. It is a big gun on tracks. The idea of tanks running over everyone is laughable, the only people who get run over by tanks are people that are already dead, because it is easy to avoid getting run over. You know why side sponsons where put on tanks? To keep infantry away from the sides of the tank, nobody charges their front and their sides are very easy to hit and very vulnerable.

Okay, so you charge a vehicle moving at speed from the side and actually make the interception with comparative ease and no impairment? please lol.

Edit: and if you want to loop around and charge a vehicle from behind, assuming this vehicle is moving at speed unless your a tyranid or something id like to know how you ran around past the tank to be behind it and then chased up with it enough to catch it.

Granted its possible with a turn based system as its not moving simultaneously but realistically, and I am talking about those faster moving vehicles. It's just highly unlikely anyone is going to be pulling it off.

Sasa0mg wrote:Okay, so you charge a vehicle moving at speed from the side and actually make the interception with comparative ease and no impairment? please lol.

Imagine Krak Grenades being like spike strips used by our police: you throw them in front of the tank and they magnetically/acidly/gooely grab on to the tank as it drives past.

Sasa0mg wrote:Okay, so you charge a vehicle moving at speed from the side and actually make the interception with comparative ease and no impairment? please lol.

Keep playin the fantasy in your head, that's how they REALLY do work. Like, in REAL LIFE. Talk to real tank personnel about gettin your tanks all close to enemy infantry and watch them give you a bizarre look. The vast majority of time, in real war, tanks get parked somewhere a mile or two from the fight with sandbags packed up infront and behind so they can pound away. Also, tanks don't have much speed. They can't fire their cannon at anything but moderate speeds that I can outrace on my bicycle. Hell, the top sponson can't even be manually used at it's "higher" speed. And you know why people attack the sides? Bye bye tracks, hello immobile tank. Immobile tank = dead. But don't take my word for it, join the armed forces, find out!

Actually, tanks had sponsons before they had turrets. Once the turret became practical, the sponson disappeared.

But really, tanks are vulnerable to assault in 6th edition because it is cinematic. Common sense and any perceptions we have of how infantry and armor interact on a modern battlefield are irrelevant. Heroic IG sergeants throw krak grenades into the intakes of DE fighters because someone in Nottingham thought it was AWESOME.

The cynical side says that all the changes we've seen that reduced the survivability of vehicles were meant to drive a meta game shift that would generate a surge of infantry sales as many people rush to retool their armies.

60mm wrote:

Sasa0mg wrote:Okay, so you charge a vehicle moving at speed from the side and actually make the interception with comparative ease and no impairment? please lol.

Keep playin the fantasy in your head, that's how they REALLY do work. Like, in REAL LIFE. Talk to real tank personnel about gettin your tanks all close to enemy infantry and watch them give you a bizarre look. The vast majority of time, in real war, tanks get parked somewhere a mile or two from the fight with sandbags packed up infront and behind so they can pound away. Also, tanks don't have much speed. They can't fire their cannon at anything but moderate speeds that I can outrace on my bicycle. Hell, the top sponson can't even be manually used at it's "higher" speed. And you know why people attack the sides? Bye bye tracks, hello immobile tank. Immobile tank = dead. But don't take my word for it, join the armed forces, find out!

Okay, I wasn't specifically relating directly to tanks, realize that "tanks" or "vehicles" also include such things as raiders, skimmers and faster moving vehicles then imperial guards slow chugging russ's.

In regards to alot of the tanks in the GW line are built to shell off heavy weaponry and like posted before me the belief that cinematic epic'ness of always finding that weak point with the vehicle every time with that perfect nade is absurd.

---

Another thing I think of my points being misunderstood is that the belief that after you've taken your turn the vehicle stops? Being caught close up in an armoured tank thats still moving flat out, it may not be its ideal place but in the opponents turn its still moving flat out? Its not like it moved flat out and pulled up for a break so the enemy could react to it. I just don't believe it should be so easy to destroy especially to melee. Thats what power fists and the likes are there to do?

While I agree with Sasa0mg, it shouldn't be just as easy to hit a boosting vehicle(that's flying, and has the word fast in its type) as it is to hit a lumbering tank, not to mention you're not just hitting a random spot on the hull, you're supposed to be hitting the vulnerable parts, which we should assume that they're protected under layers of armours.

But I also kinda agree with some others that this kinda balances out for the assault armies, though I still think it should be done better. The entire assaulting-vehicle, that is.

60mm wrote:

Stand by a highway with a 5 ft stick and try to hit a diesel truck goin 60, I'd bet it's pretty easy. Then add in the fact that MBTs are much wider and slower.

Simply touching it is one thing. Attaching a grenade to a vulnerable spot, climbing onto it to fire into vision slits, trying to rip off hatches (which, if they're anything like hatches from any tank in the last 70 years, you'd better have something with enough force to lift the entire tank practically to rip it off...), etc is an entirely different proposition.

Try climbing onto that truck as opposed to just hitting with a stuck and let me know how that goes

Try to find instances where MBTs are trying to get up close to the enemy . . . And you won't, they are forward artillery and up close is when they are most vulnerable. Doesn't take much to wreck the tank in a variety of ways.

There are plenty of instances where tanks get close to the enemy, their intended primary purpose is to bust through an enemy line and into the enemy's rear and create a gap that other forces can use to attack the flanks of the enemy line from behind. Tanks overrunning enemy positions is quite common in an offensive. It's only when they run into built up urban areas and dense forests that they encounter an issue.

60mm wrote:Man, this thread should be re-titled, "The river of IG tears". God forbid the army that had leafblower lists and nigh unstoppable parking lots get knocked back a bit.

The whole 'leafblower' thing is a pants-on-head-slowed meta-whine that nobody ever properly applies or can even consistently define, so they call any IG list with a tank a "leafblower". The problem isn't IG specific. It's anyone with tanks. Ask Eldar players how useful their Falcons and Wave Serpents are looking for example I can tell you, mine haven't exactly lasted particularly long on 6E tables.

You guys should get your hands on a Tyranid Codex and then laugh your silly tears away.

"Life is so hard with my buckets of pie plates and flyers that only my codex, ironically, has options to deal with."

Keep on cryin girlies!

"Oh, woe is me...my special snowflake army totally needed a handicap to be able to play against those meanie guys and their metal boxes...and now they're getting just what they deserve those big meanies!"


Step off it really, you sound exceedingly butthurt here. My Nids never had a problem killing tanks in CC, it was a lack of AT assets in general without spamming all of one's elite slots with AT units.

Grey Templar wrote:IRL, the last thing tanks want to do is get into a close quarters fight unsupported by infantry.

Tanks are extremely vulnerable at close range and can be more of a liability then an asset in a close quarters battle.

However, infantry casualties against tanks at close range also tend to be very high as well, tanks are dangerous, they can crush and grind people under tracks, they can machine gun infantry as they run up or off of other tanks, etc. Unfortunately, none of this exists in 40k. Tank assaults are some of the most dangerous operations an infantry unit can attempt. Not to mention that tank explosions are significantly more impressive than they are represented as in 40k

Close range fire from man portable anti-tank weapons or even getting boarded, having the hatch ripped off, and a frag grenade stuffed down the hatch.

Nothing is ripping a tank hatch off without probably taking the turret with it, they'll withstand more force than even a Space Marine would be able to exert if they're anything like they've been for the last 70 years.

Yes, tanks are very vulnerable at close range, but not anywhere near the way 40k presents them currently, and, realism aside, in 40k currently against half the basic infantry in the game they're practically auto-killed, it's easier to kill an MBT than it is to kill a couple of infantry in many case. That's an issue.

Vaktathi wrote: it's easier to kill an MBT than it is to kill a couple of infantry in many case. That's an issue.

You hit the nail on the head right there.



If it worked like this:

0 = ws 0
1-6 = ws 1
7-12 = ws 5
13-18 = ws 10
19+ = ws 10 only hit facing the model is in base with (jump infantry and jetbikes hit rear armor)

You'd still be hitting most tanks (IE mbt and things that shoot) on a 4+ and they'd only be snap firing stuff unless they were fast.. (I'm fine with the idea that you have to support mbt's with infantry, at least this way tanks would have some options)

You'd be hitting rhinos and chimeras and so on a 5+ if they moved up that extra bit in the shooting phase, that's still 1/3 of a squad with krak scoring hits (you can still mess up a vehicle with enough krag grenades, it just gives transports a chance)

At least fast vehicle and skimmers would stand a chance of surviving if they went 19 or more inches (this is the most important fix as it makes eldar/dark eldar somewhat viable)


The end result is you might actually like see someone go on the attack once in a while .

60mm wrote:

Frankenberry wrote:
I run a LR in almost every game I play and these new rules make it a guaranteed kill. Three glances and the thing is a wreck. If anything I have an issue with the hull points. I've never played against an army who couldn't kill a tank once they got into CC with it so this 'update' is crap in it's entirety. Glancing a MBT to death is utter gak, and yes. I'm biased.

I can say, having never melee'd ANY vehicle with ANYTHING in my army that this update does give my plucky guardsmen squads a chance. Here's to letting the weakest unit in the game get MVP via killing a tank with combat knives.

Stand by a highway with a 5 ft stick and try to hit a diesel truck goin 60, I'd bet it's pretty easy. Then add in the fact that MBTs are much wider and slower.

Try to find instances where MBTs are trying to get up close to the enemy . . . And you won't, they are forward artillery and up close is when they are most vulnerable. Doesn't take much to wreck the tank in a variety of ways.

Hitting it is easy, but try grabbing it's brake line, or smashing its exhaust. Slightly more difficult.