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
Daemonic Dreadnought




The dark hollows of Kentucky

Changing the cap on negative modifiers to hit so that self imposed penalities stack with penalities imposed by terrain and the target (Both of which couldn't be more than -1 total) would help, considering much of the best AT is on infantry platforms, and gw is using negative to hit abilities as a way to increase many vehicles durability. Those Eradicators arriving from Strategic Reserves suddenly aren't as scary when they're hitting on 5s.
   
Made in nl
[DCM]
Secret Inquisitorial Eldar Xenexecutor






your mind

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Today I learned "immersion" isn't important in game design.

As a game designer, this is news to me. I will have great news for the office when I get back.


Yeah, I teach at a university and use role play in classes to train for critical events. Been in classrooms in universities in some way or other for thirty years. Maybe it is a generational thing, but students seem increasingly uncomfortable and unfamiliar with the use of imagination.

For vehicles, anything that reinforces what is special about armor would help IMO, e.g. facings, damage tables, something like armor value whether it is ignore ap unless of a certain value e.g. a trukk may ignore up to negative 2, a land raider up to negative 4, etc., or weapons get an ap value for armor with mechanised vehicles (as opposed to monstrous creatures) rated accordingly, e.g. a trukk may be class 2 armor because ap neg 2 can damage it, a land raider class 4 etc... also reduce weapon ranges and or make ap shooting less effective over range with diminishing ap values.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/11 04:11:05


   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Arachnofiend wrote:
I dunno, a crowd of orks using jump packs to fly up to a plane and beat the crap out of the pilot sounds very 40k to me.


I support this reasoning.
   
Made in us
Blessed Living Saint




On the Internet

blaktoof wrote:
 Arachnofiend wrote:
I dunno, a crowd of orks using jump packs to fly up to a plane and beat the crap out of the pilot sounds very 40k to me.


I support this reasoning.

Quite literally how it worked in Space Marine, and it was awesome there.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/11 06:15:05


 
   
Made in pl
Fixture of Dakka




Make vehicles actually different from each other. Ork or IG stuff should have a lot of wounds, necron and marine stuff should have a lot of T, eldar stuff should be made of paper but come with all those fields, minus to hit etc. And tau should either be something in between, the bad option, or make them the flexible army. For example Your tank has a str 6 gun that shots 6 times, but if you use the 3 shot mode it gets +5inv. And let them overload all vehicles. want +4inv but make the cost real. So no +4inv for 1 MW to a tank that has 20 wounds, something substential, like you only hit on +6 next turn or main gun doesn't function because all power goes to shields etc.



 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Today I learned "immersion" isn't important in game design.

As a game designer, this is news to me. I will have great news for the office when I get back.


Well that depends on the game. People get dropped from national teams for being too immersed in to the game, in both contact and non contact games.

If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in it
Longtime Dakkanaut





Just increase the wounds and in some cases the T.
You don't need to increase them by a lot.

1-4 wounds more on vehicles would already make things much harder to take down.
Rhinos at 12 wounds, Dnaughts at 9, predators at 14, LRBT at 15... that would be enough to see them on the field.
Then increase the T to 9 on some vehicles like the Land Raiders and Monoliths.

Fixed.
   
Made in us
Blessed Living Saint




On the Internet

Spoletta wrote:
Just increase the wounds and in some cases the T.
You don't need to increase them by a lot.

1-4 wounds more on vehicles would already make things much harder to take down.
Rhinos at 12 wounds, Dnaughts at 9, predators at 14, LRBT at 15... that would be enough to see them on the field.
Then increase the T to 9 on some vehicles like the Land Raiders and Monoliths.

Fixed.

Then what, up dedicated anti tank weapons to be able to wound on something better than a 5+?
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






 Galas wrote:
I believe most vehicles just need 50% more wounds. Nothing more. That for and starters. Most infantry is gaining defensive stats, tougthness, saves, wounds. But vehicles have remained the same.

SAD


This. People are currently playing infantry because it's more durable than tanks, just make tanks as durable as infantry again - which just means adding wound to compensate for taking the full damage from anti-tank instead of losing two thirds to overkill. An entire army of lasguns plonking off a wound of a land-raider once a game would also no longer cause heart attacks for our elderly veterans if you have much more wounds to go around.

Of course, this would require some of the hard wound thresholds in rules to be adjusted, but most of those rules should be solved by keywords anyways.

I also think T9 is fine for some of the extremely heavy vehicles - if there is a titan on the board, T9 is something that anyone should be able to handle for everyone. Anything that is a baneblade, castellan or smaller should not be T9 though.

Outside of that, it's hilarious how this thread is overrun with people that are trying to fix 9th who have admitted on other threads of neither liking nor playing 9th.
You can basically ignore all posts of anyone bringing up that "flamer vs fliers" debate. Flamers suck at damaging fliers and fliers can easily stay out of their range because they are super fast. Claiming that this is a problem is essentially admitting that you have no clue about how the game works whatsoever and that you should not be participating in this debate.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/11 07:44:59


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
Longtime Dakkanaut





 ClockworkZion wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
Just increase the wounds and in some cases the T.
You don't need to increase them by a lot.

1-4 wounds more on vehicles would already make things much harder to take down.
Rhinos at 12 wounds, Dnaughts at 9, predators at 14, LRBT at 15... that would be enough to see them on the field.
Then increase the T to 9 on some vehicles like the Land Raiders and Monoliths.

Fixed.

Then what, up dedicated anti tank weapons to be able to wound on something better than a 5+?


STR8 weapons wounding those few very hard targets on 5 doesn't look like an issue to me.
   
Made in it
Gargantuan Gargant




Italy

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
Just increase the wounds and in some cases the T.
You don't need to increase them by a lot.

1-4 wounds more on vehicles would already make things much harder to take down.
Rhinos at 12 wounds, Dnaughts at 9, predators at 14, LRBT at 15... that would be enough to see them on the field.
Then increase the T to 9 on some vehicles like the Land Raiders and Monoliths.

Fixed.

Then what, up dedicated anti tank weapons to be able to wound on something better than a 5+?


No, because today it's too easy to spam anti tank weapons. If we were in editions like 3rd-5th when a standard list had something like 6-7 anti tank shot in total (with harsh maluses on platforms if they moved) ok, but right now we have an extremely high rate of fire for anything, including high S high AP high D weapons, plus tools to enhance them.

Since reducing the dice rolling is not gonna happen, upping W, T and maybe saves it's the easiest and safest way to make tanks better. As long as we have squads of 3-5 dudes that cost 150-170 points firing 6-8 melta shots with just -1 to hit as possible harshest penalty then wounding armored tanks on 5+ sounds about right. They'd have the high AP and D values to compensate that.


 
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






Not every faction has access to melta. Don't fall into the same trap as GW and try to fix the victim of a problem, fix the problem itself.

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
Daemonic Dreadnought




The dark hollows of Kentucky

Just increasing the price of multi-meltas would be a big help. Make it harder to bring as many without cutting into your other resources. One of the best things to happen to vehicles lately was the nerfs to Retributors.
   
Made in it
Gargantuan Gargant




Italy

 Jidmah wrote:
Not every faction has access to melta. Don't fall into the same trap as GW and try to fix the victim of a problem, fix the problem itself.


Yeah but even us, orks, can spam a huge amount of rokkits (Tankbustas also with re-rolls), KMB, smashas, etc.. plus tons of high quality attacks in close combat. And stratagems, or other bonus to buff them. And KMB will likely become very close to melta or drukhari lances. Not to mention that also mortal wounds exist.


 
   
Made in us
Poisonous Tomb Scorpion





I don't have any decent suggestion.

But I would like to point out that this is now the fourth edition of the game in a row that I've seen this topic come up. In the 8 years I've played, tanks have never been good.

Why is it so hard for them to get this right?
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






 Blackie wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
Not every faction has access to melta. Don't fall into the same trap as GW and try to fix the victim of a problem, fix the problem itself.


Yeah but even us, orks, can spam a huge amount of rokkits (Tankbustas also with re-rolls), KMB, smashas, etc.. plus tons of high quality attacks in close combat.

Many melee weapons and rokkits are just AP-2 though and just make up those shortcomings by doing a lot of damage.
And stratagems, or other bonus to buff them.

There aren't a lot of stratagems or buffs improving ork's anti-tank capacities that are going to survive the next codex. Hit 'em harder is the only one I can think of, most others are locked into one clan.

And KMB will likely become very close to melta or drukhari lances. Not to mention that also mortal wounds exist.

Not sure on that. "Kustom-" weapons always have struck me as overcharged overcharged plasma (yes, you read that right) rather than lance equivalents. It's probably the one kind of weapon I don't mind keeping d6 damage.
The SAG on the other hand should totally go to 3+d3


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Togusa wrote:
I don't have any decent suggestion.

But I would like to point out that this is now the fourth edition of the game in a row that I've seen this topic come up. In the 8 years I've played, tanks have never been good.

Why is it so hard for them to get this right?


They have been powerful multiple times since I've started. Then they crank up damage to handle that power and the go back to being gak again. A common criticism of editions before 8th was that armies looked like parking lots and that people wanted to play more infantry.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/06/11 08:48:26


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 gb
Bounding Assault Marine




UK

My usual suggestion to fall back on is bringing back the old school terminator armour (3+ save on 2D6) for heavily armoured units (i.e. <TANK> keyword), this makes attacks in the AP0/D1 - AP-1/D2 range statistically pathetic but has much less impact on high AP attacks.

Beyond armour saves, things I find immersion breaking with tanks:
1. There should be a universal standard of ram attack that is actually meaningful
2. Degrading stats should impact stats other than BS, mainly movement and potentially armour
3. Not being able to ram through crowds, particularly when it's a transport unable to get past a few blocking models
   
Made in gb
Ship's Officer





Bristol (UK)

Vehicles skirt the line of being too weak and too hard to kill.

I also think 40k's approach/distribution of anti-tank weapons makes balancing vehicles against our real world expectations difficult.
The standard infantry AT weapon in most imperial armies is the lascannon.
The standard heavy anti-tank weapon wielded by Imperial tanks such as the Predator is... multiple lascannons.

So you can't set armour strong enough to shrug off man portable AT weapons without making them immune to vehicle mounted AT weapons, because the two are the same gun!

The current implementation, in theory, is the best way to resolve this discrepany. But it feels wrong and "fleshy" to a lot of people.
I also think part of the problem is GW mostly just ported over statlines when moving from 7th to 8th, whilst changing a lot about how wound and damage resolution worked.
It shouldn't take a genius to work out that statlines designed to work with older edition's mechanics don't work in 8th. Which is where a lot of the issues come from.
   
Made in us
Daemonic Dreadnought




The dark hollows of Kentucky

GW isn't going to increase toughness or wounds for any vehicles that have already been updated to their 9th edition rules. Any help is going to have to come from changes to the core rules through FAQs like we just received. That's why I think a change to the cap on negative modifiers to hit would help. Vehicles can only benefit from two kinds of terrain: Obscuring and Dense. Make that Dense Cover matter, instead of just make your opponent not care if they have to move their Devastator squad in order to get all of their multi-meltas in range of your tank.
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






Heavy/assault penalties should really be the one thing that stacks with everything - and I'm saying that as an ork player.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/11 09:31:38


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
Daemonic Dreadnought




The dark hollows of Kentucky

It would also make vehicles ability to ignore the penalty for moving with heavy weapons more relevant. Right now it isn't much of an advantage over infantry with heavy weapons.
   
Made in fr
Regular Dakkanaut




Tanks (and many monsters) are in a bad shape because GW has been improving infantry units characteristics as a result of the new Wound Chart and AP system but didn't touch tanks and monsters for unknown reasons.

Because of the game systems, many infantry units are now more resilient than a tank/monster. It's fine for a heavy infantry unit such as a Terminator Squad, less so when an Intercessor unit of 10 models is harder to kill than a Gladiator (for example), thanks to a combination of cover, anti-tank weapons only wounding one model, etc.

It's not hard to fix tanks and monsters. GW simply has to take a close look at the number of wounds and toughness of tanks and monsters and reevaluate them.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/11 10:04:00


 
   
Made in pl
Fixture of Dakka




 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Just increasing the price of multi-meltas would be a big help. Make it harder to bring as many without cutting into your other resources. One of the best things to happen to vehicles lately was the nerfs to Retributors.


But then you still have the problems of dark lances and later bright lancer, and ad mecha lascannon. So vehicles still wouldn't be run, the only difference is that space marine armies would be nerfed for some reason.

If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in it
Longtime Dakkanaut





It could also be an issue of not having the full picture.

GW has introduced many counters in the current codex design to make sure that there is no single answer to every problem.

High RoF 1D weapons are countered by heavy infantries with lots of wounds which make them highly inefficient.

D2 and Dd3 weapons have been countered by putting -1D rules pretty much in every dex.

High strenght weapons have been countered by transhuman like rules.

We technically also have the rules against low RoF high damage weapons, like "Can suffer only one damage from each attack" or " Ignore the first unsaved wound each turn", but they are too few at the moment to have an impact. If the next codici introduce a few more of those effects, we could see them becoming less widespread.
   
Made in pl
Fixture of Dakka




So when are we going to have the full picture, in the 3-4 last months of 9th edition?

Plus how would it help all the vehicles in book that are already out or have finished their design process. There aren't going to be any pro vehicles rules in the GK or 1ksons book, because we already got to see the vehicle rules for books that were designed after both of those books. And besides stuff like the SoB high commander, which clearly bears the mark of Drazhar tier of design, we don't really get much that makes regular vehicles enticing to take.


The usual stuff is good. inv saves, being undercosted, fly etc those are good things to have in 9th. A GK or 1ksons rhino is probably going to be as good as the csm or sm rhino. Unless GW decided to give vehicles in those book their own psychic powers tree.

If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in it
Gargantuan Gargant




Italy

 Jidmah wrote:

There aren't a lot of stratagems or buffs improving ork's anti-tank capacities that are going to survive the next codex. Hit 'em harder is the only one I can think of, most others are locked into one clan.



More Dakka is a nice buff for units like 10-15 tankbustas or lootas. +1BS for Morkanaut or 3 Dreads with 2+ KMBs is another great bonus.

Wreckers, Showing Off, Visions or Seizures are all klan related, just like the re-rolls for Mek Gunz, the triple re-roll from Deathskull, the bonus on rokkits from Boomboyz or +1 to hit from Freeboterz, indeed but some of them are locked with very common klans while Goffs don't really need the anti tank, and they also have Ghaz who can smash something tough.

Next codex I don't know, but I doubt that orks won't be able to throw lots of dice even from high quality shooting, they'll likely have several tools to deal with armored stuff, like all other 9th edition armies.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/11 10:45:30



 
   
Made in us
Daemonic Dreadnought




The dark hollows of Kentucky

Karol wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Just increasing the price of multi-meltas would be a big help. Make it harder to bring as many without cutting into your other resources. One of the best things to happen to vehicles lately was the nerfs to Retributors.


But then you still have the problems of dark lances and later bright lancer, and ad mecha lascannon. So vehicles still wouldn't be run, the only difference is that space marine armies would be nerfed for some reason.

DE already don't get as many Dark Lance shots per points/unit as loyalists get multi-melta shots, even less now with the nerf to Raiders. That doesn't necessarily mean that they don't need more nerfs, but I'd wait to see what the first batch does. I haven't had any experience with the buffed Admech chickens yet, but they do seem cheap for their stats.
   
Made in pl
Fixture of Dakka




But thanks to how fly synergises with terrain they are practicaly unstoppable to deliver their guns to the enemy units or tank, no matter if they go first or second. Other armies, besides, harlequins, can not do the same thing. If they don't advance turn one, they lose on objectives, but at the same time this means they get alfa strikes by the DE player with no chance for a counter. And IMO there is no nerfs possible to fix such a style of game play. Unless by fix, we count the GW way of fixing stuff, aka making it so bad that no one plays with or against it. And I don't wish such way of fixing rules to anyone.


A ton of the stuff GW puts outs seems to be initially to cheap. And I think I have to agree with Mr CCS, that in practic it looks a lot, as if GW knew what kind of a rules they were puting out. They just generate interest in an army, to later sell people a "fix" at first in the form of a FAQ, but then the real one in form of a CA book. Gaming companies often do this too. Put out a champion or a card that is broken, and later when the sales are boosted enough. You just nerf something like Oko, with the difference that sometimes other companies say sorry or say they maybe made an error. The closest thing to , we were wrong, by GW is them saying that they were not fully satisfied .

If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






Dark lances are for sure a powerful anti-tank weapon, but they aren't anywhere near the same ballpark as eradicators or MM bikes who completely invalidate any vehicle on the board.

When I play my all-vehicle ork buggy lists into DE, dark lances are the least of my worries.


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 fr
Longtime Dakkanaut






My .02 thrones:

When 9e was released a compressive list of 'blast' weapons was printed defining all weapons that now had blast in 9e.

Ok, just define weapons as AC, anti construct. Most weapons would not be this. A lasgun sure isn't, a lascannon sure is.

Then list vehicles, fortifications and some other things as either light of heavy constructs.

Non AC weapons would get a -1 to AP and never wound a light construct on a wound roll of less than 5 regardless of S.

They would get no AP vs heavy constructs and require a 6 to wound.

I'd rule light a landspeeder a light construct, a land raider, well i think you can guess what it'd be.

infantry could be issued krak and melta grenades to make it possible to assault constructs more effectively. Krak grenades might lower the constructs rating by one, so a heavy construct would be treated as a light construct, and a light construct treated as a non construct, and melta bombs are AC.

And since I'm a necron player I'd rule all gauss weapons are AC since they disintegrate matter instead of penetrating armor.

Just kidding about that last bit. Maybe.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2021/06/11 12:38:22


"But the universe is a big place, and whatever happens, you will not be missed..." 
   
Made in ca
Steadfast Ultramarine Sergeant






I'm a big fan of vehicles just ignoring a point of damage.

Gotta overcharge plasma, meltas are basically unchanged, same for missiles, lascannons, most dedicated anti vehicle weapons.

There would need to be tweaks obviously but you can still get some glancing hits with other weapons.
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: