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.

IMO it would be more immersive and effective if, rather than being locked in combat and "fighting" like an infantryman, tanks could move through an enemy unit, making "attacks" as they do so.

Blastaar wrote:
IMO it would be more immersive and effective if, rather than being locked in combat and "fighting" like an infantryman, tanks could move through an enemy unit, making "attacks" as they do so.

should certainly be a risk to doing so but a few squashy fleshbags won't stop a tank if it decides to move unless they immobilise it.

of course a tank can pull out of combat now, it seems sensible that it should be restricted in its actions while infantry are that close though.

What I would allow however is for other units to fire into the combat to aid the tank, randomise hits say 1-2 the tank 3-6 the infantry then resolve as usual - pick the right weapon and the tanks likely fine - e.g. flamers, las guns, bolters etc.

this is also something that has a lot of historical precedence, one tank machine gunning another to clear infantry from it.

personally i think firing into combat should be allowed anyway, can you see chaos, Khorne especially, holding fire when a unit of cultists are fighting someone?

Bharring wrote:
Tank melee exists as an excuse to paint your treads RED WITH BLOOD!

BLOOD FOR THE EMPRAH!

(I SWEAR WE'RE LOYALISTS!)

> if FW want's us to exist we exist, so lomg they don't want us to exist the inquisitors can't find us.
What am i?

If it's a fun game involving lots of tanks and infantry I think it would be cool to discuss some more thematic rules, even of they're a bit more fiddly and not perfectly balanced. (Edit: I meant to say discuss with your opponent.)

In a tournament setting I figure they want to keep things fast and some, even if it can lead to some un-narrative situations*. I'm not saying that I would be opposed to some more complex rules for vehicles in melee in competitive play, just that I also understand the value in keeping things simple.

*I figure most weird rules situations can be overcome with enough imagination, but it's still nice to have rules that decrease the need for mental gymnastics.

Historically, tanks do a decent amount of ramming/charging/running over.







Even tank vs. tank, though with mixed results. There are numerous historical accounts of tanks ramming each other, particularly running over stationary AT guns, and machine gun nests etc. Don't imagine the tank fighting in close combat, consider it backing up, or advancing and running over someone stupid enough to be standing in the way. What we are missing in 40K is tank defense options like the old electro-hull, or an airburst grenade stratagem. My favourite named piece of german equipment was the nahverteidigungswaffe ---- a small grenade pistol fitted to German tanks they would fire when attacked by close infantry. It would burst a fragmentation grenade over the tank in close proximity, shelling anybody standing on the tank etc.

Tank v Tank tended to end up with two broken tanks as the metal bent, was certainly used by desperate crews especially ones who had run out of ammo. the war in the east was not 'nice'.

running over guns etc happend a lot.

personally think tanks, as in actual tanks, should be doing mortal wounds on the charge - if they have moved say 7"+ on the charge, assume less and they are going slow enough people get out of the way.

plus should have a "ram" only usable against other vehicles doing mortal wounds to both vehicles

How great would it be if they errata'd a rule onto page 177:

A unit with the VEHICLE keyword may fall back and act normally for the rest of the turn, unless it begins it's movement phase within 1" of a unit with the MONSTER or WALKER* keyword.

That would buff both VEHICLE and MONSTER keywords, and remove the situation where a floating elf motorcycle or a man with a knife can prevent a 40 ton metal box from doing whatever it wants.

*This keyword would need to be added to deserving datasheets, such as dreadnoughts (but not sentinels).

Vehicles should be afraid of infantry up close, perhaps monsters, other vehicles are much less of a threat to them.

also gives infantry a nice role in a game dominated by monsters and big vehicles

leopard wrote:
Tank v Tank tended to end up with two broken tanks as the metal bent, was certainly used by desperate crews especially ones who had run out of ammo. the war in the east was not 'nice'.

running over guns etc happend a lot.

personally think tanks, as in actual tanks, should be doing mortal wounds on the charge - if they have moved say 7"+ on the charge, assume less and they are going slow enough people get out of the way.

plus should have a "ram" only usable against other vehicles doing mortal wounds to both vehicles

I don't like the idea of it being mortal wounds, those are handed out to freely as is. A guardsmen getting hit by a tank is probably dead, a space marine or a meganob would probably shrug it out.

the_scotsman wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Rolling 3 6es to hit is still more straitforward than tank shocking last edition, which usually made me read the rulebook for 10mins to then realize that it's totally fiddly and pointless.

Yeah, and it doesn't do anything.
Oh joy, you made an enemy squad move. How effective.
The only time it actually matters is if you push them off the table or if they have heavy weapons. Which is situational and goofy as hell.

IIRC it did force a morale check unless they decided to death or glory, which if they failed they would be broken. It was useful in freakshow lists to force extra ld tests.

Which is fine against anything that's not marine, necron or demon. Too bad most people play marines.
It was a neat rule, but situational. Its like pinning; I loved the concept of pinning and forcing an enemy unit to hunker down for a turn, but it didn't come up as much as it should have. Which is a pity, because one could have totally transformed pinning into some sort of wide spread suppressing fire mechanic.

Plus, the rules gave us DEATH OR GLORY.

That rule was glorious. Whichever happened.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Wasn't the Leman Russ a originally a tractor that they stuck guns onto? I remember reading that.

That would be the Land Crawler

Huh, could have sworn that was the history behind the LRBT. The more you know I guess.

LRBT has been referenced that way, too.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:


Which is fine against anything that's not marine, necron or demon. Too bad most people play marines.
It was a neat rule, but situational. Its like pinning; I loved the concept of pinning and forcing an enemy unit to hunker down for a turn, but it didn't come up as much as it should have. Which is a pity, because one could have totally transformed pinning into some sort of wide spread suppressing fire mechanic.

You essentially described the main problem of current GW rule-writing. Instead of fixing rules that brought interesting concepts like tank shock and suppressing fire, they were unable to implement them for a long time.
Therefore they removed them, throwing the baby with the bath water.
I find praising such removal baffling, myself. The current result is Grots surrounding a Land Raider in a threatening manner (at least on the tactical standpoint).

 Stux wrote:

 generalchaos34 wrote:
I dont mind that tanks hit on a 6+.

What I really want is that if a thank hits something, it should HURT. Like D3 damage and an AP of some kind hurt, its a Tank running you over! Also I wouldn't mind if some of the bigger tanks like Leman Russes got a small bonus when they charge, maybe a bonus to hit or something, since its a big tank ramming you (ideally it would be something like if they moved over X inches that turn when they charge, sounds like a whole lot of fun, albeit very limited.

I agree with this. Vehicles should get some AP, and for medium and bigger also do more than 1 damage. At least on the charge.

It should be difficult to run over someone with a tank, but it should really hurt when it happens!

Damage? So things like this are not enough for you?

It's the tank commander hitting them with his sword after having been driven closer.

Pinning never triggered due two most models virtually not caring about morale at all.

Personally pinning should 've been marker based and the more you acumulated on a unit the more pinned down it got.

Sadly instead we got more streamlining (mind you not inherently bad) but now are going again torwards bloat.

Another thought would be to make it so that any vehicle falling back from combat can ONLY target the closest unit, therefore giving them some chance against being swamped in close combat but also making sure that they can still be tactically forced around by the infantry.

Then again, the current system does force you to take infantry support and play smart, so theres that. Everytime I have run a russ (demo or punisher) up the field alone I have always paid for that mistake when I was surrounded. I am a firm believer in balanced lists so its never been an issue for me.

This is how I picture it in my imagination:

 Grimtuff wrote:

deotrims 16th wrote:
How does a tank fight in melee please tell me. I think they should be able to use their sponsoon weapons as that was why they were used in WWI as the enemy was always very close to you. I also think they should be able to shoot at targets within 1 inch non fighting phase wise and withdraw from combat without the no shoot penalty because with infantry they can't escape as they are blocked but the tank can just run the infantry over.

You wanted Tanks to have the same statlines as infantry and MC. This is the world you live in now. You've made this bed now you've gotta lie in it.



FWIW I love the new tank stats and degrading statlines etc.

Most tanks have ws6+ and become useless in assault unless they have fly keyword. I don't think anyone envisioned this. It's garbage. Tanks should be relatively immune be being tied up.

Uh, squish?

https://youtu.be/OVvoo1qFPDo?t=144

To put it into perspective, a modern MBT nowadays would probably have a statline like so:



WS 5+ BS 2+ S7 T8 W13 A3 Ld10 Sv 2+ Mv15"

Main Turrent cannon: Heavy 2d3 Range 180" Str10 AP -2 D4
HMG: Assault 8 Range 36" Str4 AP-1
Guided Missle: 6 shots Heavy D3 Range 240" Str9 AP -3 D d6



If didn't move can reroll 1's in the shooting phase and enemy models subtract 10" from the range of guns that target it. When it advances it adds 10" to its movement.

Well, the suggestion of the OP that tanks in melee should be able to shoot all its weapons up to the turret ones makes sense to me.
Imagine a tank shoots another tank. If its able to charge the tank, it will have the chance to shoot it a second time before the enemy tank shoots back (in melee).

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Rolling 3 6es to hit is still more straitforward than tank shocking last edition, which usually made me read the rulebook for 10mins to then realize that it's totally fiddly and pointless.

Yeah, and it doesn't do anything.
Oh joy, you made an enemy squad move. How effective.
The only time it actually matters is if you push them off the table or if they have heavy weapons. Which is situational and goofy as hell.

you clearly never used 3 rhino to force a unit of 10 death company to split and lose 3/4 of their guys without firing a single shot! Tank shock could be devastating if you had a ruin or a wall somewhere and could force the enemy to split.

VoidSempai wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Rolling 3 6es to hit is still more straitforward than tank shocking last edition, which usually made me read the rulebook for 10mins to then realize that it's totally fiddly and pointless.

Yeah, and it doesn't do anything.
Oh joy, you made an enemy squad move. How effective.
The only time it actually matters is if you push them off the table or if they have heavy weapons. Which is situational and goofy as hell.

you clearly never used 3 rhino to force a unit of 10 death company to split and lose 3/4 of their guys without firing a single shot! Tank shock could be devastating if you had a ruin or a wall somewhere and could force the enemy to split.

That might be because necrons don't have Rhinos. Or cheap vehicles for that matter
Even if you do have 3 rhinos, that still sounds pretty situational and is more of an amusing anecdote than a reliable tactic.

 Eihnlazer wrote:
To put it into perspective, a modern MBT nowadays would probably have a statline like so:



WS 5+ BS 2+ S7 T8 W13 A3 Ld10 Sv 2+ Mv15"

Main Turrent cannon: Heavy 2d3 Range 180" Str10 AP -2 D4
HMG: Assault 8 Range 36" Str4 AP-1
Guided Missle: 6 shots Heavy D3 Range 240" Str9 AP -3 D d6



If didn't move can reroll 1's in the shooting phase and enemy models subtract 10" from the range of guns that target it. When it advances it adds 10" to its movement.

Main turret cannon firing AT? Should be AP -4. Plus all main turrets should have multiple fire modes. Kind of like a fire prism.
All should be immune to being tied up by infantry. Plus - since firing on the move is a thing tanks are good at - they should not be affected by moving and shooting. Plus no need for random shots. An anti tank round should just be a 1 shot kill weapon for a tank of equal size. So it should just be a 1 shot 3d6 damage hit. Plus invun saves should be entirely reworked. Some weapons should ignore all saves if shooting at their prefered target.

 Vaktathi wrote:

deotrims 16th wrote:
How does a tank fight in melee please tell me. I think they should be able to use their sponsoon weapons as that was why they were used in WWI as the enemy was always very close to you. I also think they should be able to shoot at targets within 1 inch non fighting phase wise and withdraw from combat without the no shoot penalty because with infantry they can't escape as they are blocked but the tank can just run the infantry over.

Essentially view tank melee as treads crushing infantry, turrets turning and knocking people off, using 50 ton tanks as battering rams, etc.

Things like sponson weapons work for dissuading the infantry as they approach, but if they get close enough to actually physically reach the tank, the sponson weapons are almost certainly unable to be brought to bear, thats why tanks need infantry support.

Unfortunately 40k cant encompasse everything and must rely on abstraction, and detailed tank assault rules just dont fit at 40ks current scale, so they're treated, along with monsters and other large units, rather artificially.

And anti-tank weapons should be able to oenshoot tank, so 50 infantry in close range could probably destroy couple of tans that lack support.
There is a reason in WW2 and even today that tanks always operate in cities always with infantry, because some brave man can destroy 50 ton tank with 1k$ weapon.
Also there are anti tank mines, who can make tank without support sitting duck.

I wish there was a rule, allowing a tank to effectively run over infantry. 3 attacks on 6+ are laughable and utterly useless, rarely achieving anything. IG has a stratagem for that, but that's effective only for Baneblades. On anything smaller it's from situational to useless

My idea is that the tank has 3A with a rule that say "double/triple the number of attacks if the unit you charge has <infantry> keyword. Counts only for the first fight phase."

my thought on mortal wounds was only fo armour attacking armour, nor for v infantry stuff, in effect mutual metal bending

I'm surprised no one has posted this yet.



As an Ork player, I have few problems with vehicles in melee.