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 au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

Why would you want actual AT weapons to need to re-roll to wound?

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

 
   
Made in us
Daemonic Dreadnought




The dark hollows of Kentucky

BrianDavion wrote:
 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.

If tanks reduce all damage by 2, then what about all of the D3 AT weapons, like that battle cannon on the fancy new SoB tank?

Your forgot another difference between Land Raiders and Predators: Land Raiders have a 2+ save, Predators have a 3+. That works out to about a 33% damage reduction against AP-1 and 25% against AP-2, which is where most "chip damage" weapons sit. Tanks should have 2+ saves. And yes, "sufficient numbers" of AT weapons should kill tanks, but right now it's way too easy to get those "sufficient numbers". Jidmah is right, AT weapons need to go up in price on cheap platforms. It probably wouldn't hurt to drop the price on some tanks either.
   
Made in nz
Road-Raging Blood Angel Biker



New Zealand

How about increase the armour saves and to Landraiders have 0+ and Russes 1+ (or better).

Have it so if the save mod doesn't reduce it to 2+ or worse the wound must be rerolled with a 2+ save.

Or

Tank: If weapons attacking this vehicle does not have at least -1 save mod, wound rolls must be rerolled.

Heavy Tank: If weapons attacking this vehicle does not have at least -2 save mod, wound rolls must be rerolled.

Just some brainstormed ideas.
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins




leerm02 wrote:
I'm onboard with this new wounding system as well :-)


Must be nice to not play a T3 army then. Gonna drop battle sisters and guardians down to 4pts and 2pts each while you're at it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Canadian 5th 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 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.


Boring and fiddly. Got it.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/19 16:27:24


2500pts
2500
3000


 
   
Made in us
Depraved Slaanesh Chaos Lord




Inside Yvraine

RE: the anti-infantry vs anti-armor discussion: just make it so that anti-vehicle weapons have a ANTI-ARMOR keyword, and stipulate that units with the VEHICLE keyword take -x damage (to a minimum of 1) from weapons that do not have the ANTI-ARMOR keyword.

   
Made in us
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord





In My Lab

 BlaxicanX wrote:
RE: the anti-infantry vs anti-armor discussion: just make it so that anti-vehicle weapons have a ANTI-ARMOR keyword, and stipulate that units with the VEHICLE keyword take -x damage (to a minimum of 1) from weapons that do not have the ANTI-ARMOR keyword.

Issue with that is weapons don't have Keywords.

They really should, if GW is gonna use a Keyword system, though.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in us
Depraved Slaanesh Chaos Lord




Inside Yvraine

I thought about that, yeah. They do have a special effects section though right. Like melta and plasma both have a descriptor for their special effects. You could as a shortcut just put it there.

"VEHICLES do not get the x damage reduction against this weapon".
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






 JNAProductions wrote:
 BlaxicanX wrote:
RE: the anti-infantry vs anti-armor discussion: just make it so that anti-vehicle weapons have a ANTI-ARMOR keyword, and stipulate that units with the VEHICLE keyword take -x damage (to a minimum of 1) from weapons that do not have the ANTI-ARMOR keyword.

Issue with that is weapons don't have Keywords.

They really should, if GW is gonna use a Keyword system, though.


Blast and Plague Weapon disagree.

Though if you go as far as adding keyword, you might as well go all the way and do it like apoc does - IMO the absolute best solution to the problem.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 BlaxicanX wrote:
I thought about that, yeah. They do have a special effects section though right. Like melta and plasma both have a descriptor for their special effects. You could as a shortcut just put it there.

"VEHICLES do not get the x damage reduction against this weapon".


Well, that's a rule to ignore a rule that ignores a rule. Besides giving many hobby-game-design-experts a heart attack, this is probably not the best solution.

Mechanically, this isn't that different from just increasing vehicle wounds and giving certain weapons more reliability against VEHICLEs.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/19 17:38:53


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
Depraved Slaanesh Chaos Lord




Inside Yvraine

Sure, but you can take that logic and run with it forever. If we gave the game the deep, systemic changes it actually needs it would necessitate basically rewriting the entire game from the ground up.

And is going down the list of almost every vehicle in the game and increasing their wound counts really less work then copy pasting a one sentence description on to some weapons and calling it a day?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/19 18:08:36


 
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







 Jidmah wrote:
 JNAProductions wrote:
 BlaxicanX wrote:
RE: the anti-infantry vs anti-armor discussion: just make it so that anti-vehicle weapons have a ANTI-ARMOR keyword, and stipulate that units with the VEHICLE keyword take -x damage (to a minimum of 1) from weapons that do not have the ANTI-ARMOR keyword.

Issue with that is weapons don't have Keywords.

They really should, if GW is gonna use a Keyword system, though.


Blast and Plague Weapon disagree.

Though if you go as far as adding keyword, you might as well go all the way and do it like apoc does - IMO the absolute best solution to the problem...


I don't get why people keep coming back to Apoc/Epic's anti-tank/anti-infantry to-wound as a mechanic. We already have a to-wound table that gives us a relationship between Strength and Toughness, and we have "infantry" with (roughly) T5 and under, and "armour" with (roughly) T6 and above. We could tweak that table slightly to make the distinction clearer, but people keep suggesting we instead give everything a flat to-wound like Sigmar only with one to-wound value against things with T5- and another against things with T6+? Aren't we adding more numbers to weapon statlines to remove granularity from the game at that point?

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






Because as it is now, a weapon's ability to handle tanks and infantry are always connected to each other in the exact same way. If you create a weapons that is good at killing marines, it will always be good at killing anything but the most durable vehicles. This is what causes half the actual problem in this thread.

If a weapon could have two profiles for soft and hard targets (with the default for hard targets being 0 damage), you could specialize weapons much better.

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
Boosting Black Templar Biker






 BlaxicanX wrote:
And is going down the list of almost every vehicle in the game and increasing their wound counts really less work then copy pasting a one sentence description on to some weapons and calling it a day?

Completely agree, adding an Anti-Armor keyword or just a sentence saying this weapon is effective against armor isn't a ton of work and it's the simplest solution to making sure Anti-tank weapons are anti-tank and anti-infantry weapons like a S7 AP-X D2 weapon don't turn vehicles into mulch.

Tanks getting -1DMG like Dreadnoughts is easy enough, then the Anti-Armor ability bypasses that.

Since I like Armor Saves and don't like the overabundance of AP out there, my personal preference would be you don't apply AP to vehicles unless your weapon has Anti-Armor. So Meltas, Lances, Rokkits, etc. apply AP while auto-cannons et al. do not.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/06/19 21:19:04


 
   
Made in gb
Utilizing Careful Highlighting




U.k

I always liked a tank to be able to be one shotted by a very lucky shot. Otherwise soak up damage but a mechanic that allows them to be surprise killed would help. I like the idea of increasing/decreasing saves depending on facing too.
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







 Jidmah wrote:
Because as it is now, a weapon's ability to handle tanks and infantry are always connected to each other in the exact same way. If you create a weapons that is good at killing marines, it will always be good at killing anything but the most durable vehicles. This is what causes half the actual problem in this thread.

If a weapon could have two profiles for soft and hard targets (with the default for hard targets being 0 damage), you could specialize weapons much better.


Which you could also fix by changing the wound table and shuffling stats on some crossover weapons. Imagine for the moment we're doing the 7e wound table instead of the current one; the current heavy bolter stats would be pretty good at killing Space Marines, but it'd be wounding T7 or T8 on 6+ so you might scratch a tank a bit if you throw enough heavy bolters at it but it'll never be cost-effective. Go to the other end of the weapon stat range (still under the 7e wound table) and your lascannon is wounding T8 on 3+ and T7 on 2+, so it'll put damage on tanks really well, but it can never kill more than one Space Marine per shot, so the heavy bolter does more work against non-vehicle targets.

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
Hurr! Ogryn Bone 'Ead!






 Jidmah wrote:
Because as it is now, a weapon's ability to handle tanks and infantry are always connected to each other in the exact same way. If you create a weapons that is good at killing marines, it will always be good at killing anything but the most durable vehicles. This is what causes half the actual problem in this thread.

If a weapon could have two profiles for soft and hard targets (with the default for hard targets being 0 damage), you could specialize weapons much better.


If we are getting to the point of splitting all weapons into having two profiles, we might as well instead just put the S and T stats to actual use. Also add wounds to them and implement 2+ saves where it makes sense. Bonus points if you also remove most invulnerable saves and just give them +X wounds - not an exact match, but 5+ invuln on a vehicle would add roughly 1/3 extra wounds, etc.

Make the flimsiest of vehicles and monsters T10/11, things like a Russ or Knight T16, Land Raiders and Baneblades T18, etc, then buff up the Anti Tank weapons to work. A S18 or 20 Lascannon dealing 6+1d6 damage to a 24 wound Russ tank, etc. Damage doesn't spill over in 40k, so who cares if that same weapon is dealing 7-12 damage to a single space marine? It was as good as dead with the old profile anyways, and characters have character protection as well, and can even have the wound max for that to kick in added to, say 12 now.

It seems just using the existing system to its fullest makes more sense than adding a secondary profile to every weapon in the game.
   
Made in us
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord





In My Lab

A 5+ save is worth an extra 50% wounds, if it’s always there. Same with a FNP-a 5+ FNP is effectively an increase of half your wound total.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in us
Daemonic Dreadnought




The dark hollows of Kentucky

 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
Because as it is now, a weapon's ability to handle tanks and infantry are always connected to each other in the exact same way. If you create a weapons that is good at killing marines, it will always be good at killing anything but the most durable vehicles. This is what causes half the actual problem in this thread.

If a weapon could have two profiles for soft and hard targets (with the default for hard targets being 0 damage), you could specialize weapons much better.


Which you could also fix by changing the wound table and shuffling stats on some crossover weapons. Imagine for the moment we're doing the 7e wound table instead of the current one; the current heavy bolter stats would be pretty good at killing Space Marines, but it'd be wounding T7 or T8 on 6+ so you might scratch a tank a bit if you throw enough heavy bolters at it but it'll never be cost-effective. Go to the other end of the weapon stat range (still under the 7e wound table) and your lascannon is wounding T8 on 3+ and T7 on 2+, so it'll put damage on tanks really well, but it can never kill more than one Space Marine per shot, so the heavy bolter does more work against non-vehicle targets.

^^^^This. The whole "chip damage" problem is caused by the current wounding table. Go back to the old wounding table, and suddenly heavy bolters and similar weapons don't threaten tanks anymore. Why they changed it escapes me.

But they aren't changing it back this edition. Which is why I think we should concentrate on the things that are really killing tanks right now: underpriced, super effective, AT weapons. They don't need an edition change to increase prices on things like Eradicators and MM Attack Bikes, and doing so would help tanks a lot. As would giving out more 2+ saves going forward. My Sicaran doesn't worry as much about heavy bolters now that it has a 2+ save, but a squad of Eradicators can erase it easily, which is fine, they should just cost appropriately for that ability. And right now they don't.
   
Made in mx
Tunneling Trygon




Mexico

Because Knights. The old wounding table just breaks down if someone can bring an entire army of T8 models.
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







 Tyran wrote:
Because Knights. The old wounding table just breaks down if someone can bring an entire army of T8 models.


...Which is an argument for turning Knights into LoW choices for other armies rather than trying to make them their own Codex. The determination to make sure the maximum possible spam/skew lists exists is why the game is as badly broken as it is; if you can't predict what your opponent is going to take the only way for an all-comers list to have a chance of competing with a skew list is to make the game so lethal that you can fight the skew list with just the AT in the all-comers list. If Knights didn't exist as a standalone Codex everything else would be better.

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
Exalted Beastlord




 JNAProductions wrote:
 BlaxicanX wrote:
RE: the anti-infantry vs anti-armor discussion: just make it so that anti-vehicle weapons have a ANTI-ARMOR keyword, and stipulate that units with the VEHICLE keyword take -x damage (to a minimum of 1) from weapons that do not have the ANTI-ARMOR keyword.

Issue with that is weapons don't have Keywords.

They really should, if GW is gonna use a Keyword system, though.


GW hasn't really grasped the real functionality of keywords yet. They're still half-place holders and mostly very limited army building tags. Occasionally the designers realize they can be used to set CP on fire or severely limit special rules.

But every time they feel the need to explain (for example) that 'rapid fire bolt weapons are any bolt weapons with the rapid fire type,' I just face palm.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/20 01:25:39


Efficiency is the highest virtue. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
Because as it is now, a weapon's ability to handle tanks and infantry are always connected to each other in the exact same way. If you create a weapons that is good at killing marines, it will always be good at killing anything but the most durable vehicles. This is what causes half the actual problem in this thread.

If a weapon could have two profiles for soft and hard targets (with the default for hard targets being 0 damage), you could specialize weapons much better.


Which you could also fix by changing the wound table and shuffling stats on some crossover weapons. Imagine for the moment we're doing the 7e wound table instead of the current one; the current heavy bolter stats would be pretty good at killing Space Marines, but it'd be wounding T7 or T8 on 6+ so you might scratch a tank a bit if you throw enough heavy bolters at it but it'll never be cost-effective. Go to the other end of the weapon stat range (still under the 7e wound table) and your lascannon is wounding T8 on 3+ and T7 on 2+, so it'll put damage on tanks really well, but it can never kill more than one Space Marine per shot, so the heavy bolter does more work against non-vehicle targets.



At the moment, a single BS3+ Heavy bolter is averaging a grand total of... 0.88dmg against any vehicle that is T6+ and has a 3+ save. 3 shots, 2 hits, 0.66wounds against a 5+ its 0.44 unsaved for a grand total of...0.88dmg. So my question than, is it really small arms capable of chipping away wounds that is the issue or is it a fictional problem invented to keep people from fixing the real issue which is D3+3 and melta weapons?

Because at the moment, in order to kill a Predator tank with Heavy bolters would take 12.375 Heavy Bolters, or 37.1 Heavy bolter shots. A single attack bike is 45pts with a heavy bolter, so in order to kill a 130ptish Predator you would need 556pts of Attack Bikes, conversely you could take 3 squads of Devastators with Heavy Bolters which would run you 390pts.

On the reverse of that, in order to kill a Predator tank with those same attack bikes and devastators, if they are armed with Multi-meltas its a bit less than 4 Attack bikes (220pts) or a single Devastator squad for 170pts. And if you can get them within half range....its 2 attack bikes or HALF a dev squad.

But yeah, lets talk about reducing incoming dmg of small arms vs tanks, that is far more important than the real problems like melta and the D3+3 lascannons floating about.

 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
Exalted Beastlord




SemperMortis wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
Because as it is now, a weapon's ability to handle tanks and infantry are always connected to each other in the exact same way. If you create a weapons that is good at killing marines, it will always be good at killing anything but the most durable vehicles. This is what causes half the actual problem in this thread.

If a weapon could have two profiles for soft and hard targets (with the default for hard targets being 0 damage), you could specialize weapons much better.


Which you could also fix by changing the wound table and shuffling stats on some crossover weapons. Imagine for the moment we're doing the 7e wound table instead of the current one; the current heavy bolter stats would be pretty good at killing Space Marines, but it'd be wounding T7 or T8 on 6+ so you might scratch a tank a bit if you throw enough heavy bolters at it but it'll never be cost-effective. Go to the other end of the weapon stat range (still under the 7e wound table) and your lascannon is wounding T8 on 3+ and T7 on 2+, so it'll put damage on tanks really well, but it can never kill more than one Space Marine per shot, so the heavy bolter does more work against non-vehicle targets.



At the moment, a single BS3+ Heavy bolter is averaging a grand total of... 0.88dmg against any vehicle that is T6+ and has a 3+ save. 3 shots, 2 hits, 0.66wounds against a 5+ its 0.44 unsaved for a grand total of...0.88dmg. So my question than, is it really small arms capable of chipping away wounds that is the issue or is it a fictional problem invented to keep people from fixing the real issue which is D3+3 and melta weapons?

Because at the moment, in order to kill a Predator tank with Heavy bolters would take 12.375 Heavy Bolters, or 37.1 Heavy bolter shots. A single attack bike is 45pts with a heavy bolter, so in order to kill a 130ptish Predator you would need 556pts of Attack Bikes, conversely you could take 3 squads of Devastators with Heavy Bolters which would run you 390pts.

On the reverse of that, in order to kill a Predator tank with those same attack bikes and devastators, if they are armed with Multi-meltas its a bit less than 4 Attack bikes (220pts) or a single Devastator squad for 170pts. And if you can get them within half range....its 2 attack bikes or HALF a dev squad.

But yeah, lets talk about reducing incoming dmg of small arms vs tanks, that is far more important than the real problems like melta and the D3+3 lascannons floating about.


I'm not convinced those are 'the real problems' given that tanks were rather crap even before the new multi-melta and AT weapon profiles.

Efficiency is the highest virtue. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Voss wrote:


I'm not convinced those are 'the real problems' given that tanks were rather crap even before the new multi-melta and AT weapon profiles.


No, the problem was everyone spamming not heavy bolters, the problem was the mid-tier anti-elite infantry/vehicle weapons like plasma style weapons or even the ork rokkit. I'll be the first to admit that the ork rokkit is in a wonderful place stats wise (not price wise). Its S8 -2AP and flat 3 dmg. Its 1 shotting gravis Marines and doing a decent dent into armored vehicles. The issue is that everyone was FORCED to take that style of weapon because it was the most cost effective way to dealing with a Marine be it primaris, gravis or whatever. case and point. For me to shoot to death 1 Gravis armored Marine required, and I am not joking, 70 shoota shots or 35 Ork Shoota boyz. At 8ppm you are talking about 280pts to kill a single 40pt (ish) model. On the flipside of that, in order to kill a Gravis Marine with rokkitz I needed 6 Rokkitz which is 108pts of Orkz (less if I took Tankbustas). Now, against those Tanks, my 35 shoota boyz were doing 3dmg if they rolled average. Those 6 Rokkitz? they were also doing 3dmg to a tank (significantly more if i took tankbustas). So Against elite infantry those Rokkitz were SIGNIFICANTLY better than shootas and against vehicles? SIGNIFICANTLY better. Basically they were twice as effective at both targets. The only time those shootas were more effective was against soft targets with no armor.

So again, the problem isn't small arms chipping away wounds, its ridiculous anti-tank weapons or ridiculous combos that stacked AP like crazy or applied to wound mechanics like always wounding on 4s.

 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
Exalted Beastlord




SemperMortis wrote:
Voss wrote:


I'm not convinced those are 'the real problems' given that tanks were rather crap even before the new multi-melta and AT weapon profiles.


No, the problem was everyone spamming not heavy bolters, the problem was the mid-tier anti-elite infantry/vehicle weapons like plasma style weapons or even the ork rokkit. I'll be the first to admit that the ork rokkit is in a wonderful place stats wise (not price wise). Its S8 -2AP and flat 3 dmg. Its 1 shotting gravis Marines and doing a decent dent into armored vehicles. The issue is that everyone was FORCED to take that style of weapon because it was the most cost effective way to dealing with a Marine be it primaris, gravis or whatever. case and point. For me to shoot to death 1 Gravis armored Marine required, and I am not joking, 70 shoota shots or 35 Ork Shoota boyz. At 8ppm you are talking about 280pts to kill a single 40pt (ish) model. On the flipside of that, in order to kill a Gravis Marine with rokkitz I needed 6 Rokkitz which is 108pts of Orkz (less if I took Tankbustas). Now, against those Tanks, my 35 shoota boyz were doing 3dmg if they rolled average. Those 6 Rokkitz? they were also doing 3dmg to a tank (significantly more if i took tankbustas). So Against elite infantry those Rokkitz were SIGNIFICANTLY better than shootas and against vehicles? SIGNIFICANTLY better. Basically they were twice as effective at both targets. The only time those shootas were more effective was against soft targets with no armor.

So again, the problem isn't small arms chipping away wounds, its ridiculous anti-tank weapons or ridiculous combos that stacked AP like crazy or applied to wound mechanics like always wounding on 4s.


You're contradicting yourself. Rokkits aren't anything like the new multimeltas, dark lances, or whatever Namename Nameguns Ad Mech get. Neither are the barnyard full of plasma weapon variants.
You're claiming the new weapons are the 'real problem' but... citing old weapons.

Whatever your issues are with small arms, that's not what I was disagreeing with you about.

Efficiency is the highest virtue. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Voss wrote:
SemperMortis wrote:
Voss wrote:


I'm not convinced those are 'the real problems' given that tanks were rather crap even before the new multi-melta and AT weapon profiles.


No, the problem was everyone spamming not heavy bolters, the problem was the mid-tier anti-elite infantry/vehicle weapons like plasma style weapons or even the ork rokkit. I'll be the first to admit that the ork rokkit is in a wonderful place stats wise (not price wise). Its S8 -2AP and flat 3 dmg. Its 1 shotting gravis Marines and doing a decent dent into armored vehicles. The issue is that everyone was FORCED to take that style of weapon because it was the most cost effective way to dealing with a Marine be it primaris, gravis or whatever. case and point. For me to shoot to death 1 Gravis armored Marine required, and I am not joking, 70 shoota shots or 35 Ork Shoota boyz. At 8ppm you are talking about 280pts to kill a single 40pt (ish) model. On the flipside of that, in order to kill a Gravis Marine with rokkitz I needed 6 Rokkitz which is 108pts of Orkz (less if I took Tankbustas). Now, against those Tanks, my 35 shoota boyz were doing 3dmg if they rolled average. Those 6 Rokkitz? they were also doing 3dmg to a tank (significantly more if i took tankbustas). So Against elite infantry those Rokkitz were SIGNIFICANTLY better than shootas and against vehicles? SIGNIFICANTLY better. Basically they were twice as effective at both targets. The only time those shootas were more effective was against soft targets with no armor.

So again, the problem isn't small arms chipping away wounds, its ridiculous anti-tank weapons or ridiculous combos that stacked AP like crazy or applied to wound mechanics like always wounding on 4s.

You're contradicting yourself. Rokkits aren't anything like the new multimeltas, dark lances, or whatever Namename Nameguns Ad Mech get. Neither are the barnyard full of plasma weapon variants.
You're claiming the new weapons are the 'real problem' but... citing old weapons.

Whatever your issues are with small arms, that's not what I was disagreeing with you about.


And I quote
I'm not convinced those are 'the real problems' given that tanks were rather crap even before the new multi-melta and AT weapon profiles
Bolded for emphasis. I was answering WHY tanks were "crap" prior to the new weapon stats. I also believe its a problem of GW not correctly distributing wounds to vehicles (They need about 1/3rd more). Prior to Melta spam and D3+3 weapons people were forced to take more heavy weapons than you would normally see in a "Tac" list because it was the only response a lot of armies had to the 100% increase in a normal Marine durability profile. Why spam S4 no AP shots into a 2wound model with a 3+ when you can just double up on anti-tank weapons like plasma and Rokkitz that do double duty as anti-tank AND anti-Marine.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/20 01:57:53


 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
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







SemperMortis wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
Because as it is now, a weapon's ability to handle tanks and infantry are always connected to each other in the exact same way. If you create a weapons that is good at killing marines, it will always be good at killing anything but the most durable vehicles. This is what causes half the actual problem in this thread.

If a weapon could have two profiles for soft and hard targets (with the default for hard targets being 0 damage), you could specialize weapons much better.


Which you could also fix by changing the wound table and shuffling stats on some crossover weapons. Imagine for the moment we're doing the 7e wound table instead of the current one; the current heavy bolter stats would be pretty good at killing Space Marines, but it'd be wounding T7 or T8 on 6+ so you might scratch a tank a bit if you throw enough heavy bolters at it but it'll never be cost-effective. Go to the other end of the weapon stat range (still under the 7e wound table) and your lascannon is wounding T8 on 3+ and T7 on 2+, so it'll put damage on tanks really well, but it can never kill more than one Space Marine per shot, so the heavy bolter does more work against non-vehicle targets.



At the moment, a single BS3+ Heavy bolter is averaging a grand total of... 0.88dmg against any vehicle that is T6+ and has a 3+ save. 3 shots, 2 hits, 0.66wounds against a 5+ its 0.44 unsaved for a grand total of...0.88dmg. So my question than, is it really small arms capable of chipping away wounds that is the issue or is it a fictional problem invented to keep people from fixing the real issue which is D3+3 and melta weapons?

Because at the moment, in order to kill a Predator tank with Heavy bolters would take 12.375 Heavy Bolters, or 37.1 Heavy bolter shots. A single attack bike is 45pts with a heavy bolter, so in order to kill a 130ptish Predator you would need 556pts of Attack Bikes, conversely you could take 3 squads of Devastators with Heavy Bolters which would run you 390pts.

On the reverse of that, in order to kill a Predator tank with those same attack bikes and devastators, if they are armed with Multi-meltas its a bit less than 4 Attack bikes (220pts) or a single Devastator squad for 170pts. And if you can get them within half range....its 2 attack bikes or HALF a dev squad.

But yeah, lets talk about reducing incoming dmg of small arms vs tanks, that is far more important than the real problems like melta and the D3+3 lascannons floating about.


The heavy bolter was an example for a completely different part of the discussion (the part about whether going to Apocalypse-style fixed anti-infantry to-wound and fixed anti-tank to-wound would be relevant).

Dd3+3 and melta are absolutely a problem, but if you take a moment and rewind to 8th before those buffs happened most vehicles were still pretty bad. Rolling back the damage creep would make damage creep not the problem, but it wouldn't do anything about the mid-power spam that was the problem in 8th.

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 mx
Tunneling Trygon




Mexico

8th edition was also gun-line galore. You cannot have a gun-line of heavy bolters and similar weapons in 9th because a) lots of line of sight blocking and b) you will get charged.

Oh and c) Death Guard and Dreadnoughts exist.

And I don't think there are super efficient heavy bolter units like there is with multi-meltas.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/20 02:15:42


 
   
Made in ca
Deranged Necron Destroyer






Just add ½ the current wounds to all vehicles.

Girl Gamers are the best! 
   
Made in us
Daemonic Dreadnought




The dark hollows of Kentucky

"Mid-power spam" is only effective on tanks because of buff stacking. Heavy Bolters aren't a problem until you start giving them +1 to wound, rerolling hits, rerolling wounds, etc, etc. Ork Rokkits and overcharged plasma aren't "mid-power" weapons. They're both S8, that's AT. Tankbustas are called Tankbustas for a reason. But they're priced for that ability, things like MM Attack Bikes and Heavy Melta-Rifle Eradicators aren't. A unit that can one shot a Land Raider should be an expensive proposition.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Gadzilla666 wrote:

^^^^This. The whole "chip damage" problem is caused by the current wounding table. Go back to the old wounding table, and suddenly heavy bolters and similar weapons don't threaten tanks anymore. Why they changed it escapes me.

I remember seeing so many new and potential players get really self-conscious about the old to-wound table, and I remember several occassions where they were clearly downright embarrassed to not know what they needed to wound off the top of their head if their opponent was constantly telling them what they needed to wound. I had opponents spend a surprising amount of time cracking open the back of their main rulebook to consult that table. So while I personally never found the table all that difficult to work with, I have to admit that it did seem to be a real hurdle for some people. The new system does seem to be easier for newbies to wrap their heads around.

I'm coming into the conversation late. I remember a year ago people were complaining that lascannons and meltaguns didn't do enough damage to tanks compared to D2 and D3 weapons. Now people seem to be arguing both that chip damage is too good and things like dark lances and meltas are too good. What's the argument against just raising wounds on vehicles by like, 20ish percent?
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: