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

Wyldhunt wrote:
 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?

Gw actually doing it mid-edition, especially for anything that already has 9th edition rules. They'd have to rework the wound brackets for everything affected, as well as any rules that kick in at "X wounds", such as the terrain rules. It'd be a big errata. Points adjustments are something they do all of the time. The issue isn't that meltas are "too good", it's that they're too cheap on some platforms. Multi-melta armed dreadnoughts or tanks aren't an issue, it's cheap Suicide Units with them that you don't care about throwing away to get the kill, because they're almost always trading up.

I personally don't think Dark Lances are as much of a problem, because Dark Eldar can't bring as many for as few points and FOC slots. Many, of course, don't agree with that.
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






 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.


That would just make other weapons be good against everything. As long as you have one value to compare against for both types of targets, there will always be a sweet spot in the middle where some guns will good against everything. The old wounding chart massively benefited spamming S7 and S6 weapons for the "good for everything" role.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 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.


"Chip damage" is not a problem in 9th. I don't know about you, but in pre-8th edition, most of my vehicles died to multi-lasers, scatter lasers, assault cannons and autocannon with honorable mention to all those suicide meltas.

When I run orks, I have extremely light vehicles in my army and despite 4+ armor, it's not heavy bolters that are laying waste to my buggy army. Neither are those anti-infantry weapons mentioned above. It two hits from a dedicated anti-tank gun on a platform that is cheaper than my weakest buggy which simply rips it apart.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/06/20 09:33:26


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 it
Gargantuan Gargant




Italy

Ork vehicles' durability has increased by a large margin in 8th and 9th compared to older editions.

I certainly didn't miss the times when my vehicles were instant killed too easily or wrecked by regular troops' weapons. Now trukks and buggies can really tank a lot of S4/5 before going down and no single anti tank shot can instant kill them.


 
   
Made in us
Daemonic Dreadnought




The dark hollows of Kentucky

 Jidmah wrote:
 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.


"Chip damage" is not a problem in 9th. I don't know about you, but in pre-8th edition, most of my vehicles died to multi-lasers, scatter lasers, assault cannons and autocannon with honorable mention to all those suicide meltas.

When I run orks, I have extremely light vehicles in my army and despite 4+ armor, it's not heavy bolters that are laying waste to my buggy army. Neither are those anti-infantry weapons mentioned above. It two hits from a dedicated anti-tank gun on a platform that is cheaper than my weakest buggy which simply rips it apart.

As I've stated, repeatedly, I think the problem is cheap super efficient AT weapons like multi-meltas on platforms such as Attack Bikes, not "chip damage". But others seem obsessed with it, which is why I addressed it. Strength 5-6 weapons can be dangerous when sufficiently buffed, but that isn't as easy for most 9th edition codexes.
   
Made in gb
Killer Klaivex




The dark behind the eyes.

I can't help but wonder whether part of the problem lies in people assuming that crap vehicles must all be crap for the exact same reason.

For example, I imagine many transports are crap not because of a vulnerability to anti-tank weapons but because they're expensive and they suck at their job. And I don't just mean one or two transports. I mean every transport in 9th sucks at its job by design. Making it so that troops can't disembark their transport if it moved is terrible, terrible design. It's not as if it had to be a double-move, either (just say that if the transport moved, its passengers can disembark 3" but cannot move or advance further in that Movement phase).

Even in terms of armies with supposedly "good" transports, you find similar issues. The DE Raider is fairly solid, for example, but the Venom is a load of arse because it costs barely less than the Raider but has almost half the wounds and transport capacity and is armed with water-pistols in lieu of actual guns.

I bring the Venom up as an example because it seems to go against the general idea of how vehicles should be improved. Giving the Venom more armour or damage reduction would not be thematically appropriate. The only thing it suffers from in terms of defence is that its innate -1 to hit is vastly less useful in 9th due to the modifier caps. Mostly, however, its problems lie in the fact that its simply too expensive and its guns (despite the considerable hype at the time) are still about as impactful as breaking wind at the enemy.

I could give similar examples with stuff like the Necron Annihilation Barge or (if we're doing 8th edition books) the IG Chimera. or perhaps a better example still would be the Vanquisher Leman Russ. In fact, this is perhaps the best possible example I could give to illustrate my point - because it is on the exact same chassis as other Leman Russ variants but is still drastically worse (so clearly the problem doesn't like with the tank's defensive profile).

The point I'm trying to make is that, with the possible exception of the core transport rules, perhaps it would be better to look at vehicles on an individual basis, rather than trying to find a one-size-fits-all solution? Someone already pointed out earlier, for example, that some of the proposed fixes for monsters might leave Nid monsters in around the right place but would also make some of the currently good monsters utterly broken. Hence, perhaps the focus should be on specifically fixing nid monsters, rather than trying to find a blanket solution.

What I'm proposing then is for people to post the 'worst offenders' (especially from 9th edition books, as they're supposed to be ready for this edition) so that others can look at them and suggest more tailored solutions.

I realise that this is much more of a palaver than a blanket fix but one of the most common criticisms levelled against GW is that they fix minor problems with a sledgehammer, so perhaps we should set our own ambitions a little higher.

 the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"

 Argive wrote:
GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.


 Andilus Greatsword wrote:

"Prepare to open fire at that towering Wraithknight!"
"ARE YOU DAFT MAN!?! YOU MIGHT HIT THE MEN WHO COME UP TO ITS ANKLES!!!"


Akiasura wrote:
I hate to sound like a serial killer, but I'll be reaching for my friend occam's razor yet again.


 insaniak wrote:

You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.

Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
 
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins




Trying vipoid's idea:

Nundams are bad. They have defensive buffs already and solid damage output. Increasing their defenses further might work but just making them cheaper (65-70 base) is likely your best chance.

The Castigator is terrible: Mediocre damage for its cost and also more fragile than a 5 girl battle sister squad. T8 and a 20pt drop would probably be fine. Maybe add an extra wound.

The Exorcist is terrible: Revert all changes from the previous codex. The old version at 195 with no stratagem is better than the current one even when it ignores LoS.

Immolator: 20-35pts cheaper depending on the weapon.

Rhino: 10pts cheaper would be nice.

2500pts
2500
3000


 
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







 Jidmah wrote:
...That would just make other weapons be good against everything. As long as you have one value to compare against for both types of targets, there will always be a sweet spot in the middle where some guns will good against everything. The old wounding chart massively benefited spamming S7 and S6 weapons for the "good for everything" role...


S6/S7-spam was prevalent in 6th and 7th because of a defensive stat screw-up that meant there were huge numbers of effectively T6-8 models with two or three wounds and no save (AV10-12 vehicles) running around, and your spammable S6/S7 was still effective at forcing saves on smaller targets. That sweet spot where spamming the one weapon is an efficient answer to everything doesn't exist in 30k because higher AVs are more common, spammable S6/S7 isn't grotesquely underpriced, and your average monster has slightly higher Toughness and worse saves (3+/5++ on a Castellax versus 2+/3++ on a Riptide) so AT weapons are actually more efficient against them. If you can fix the problem by rebalancing the stats I don't think the to-wound table was at fault.

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
Confessor Of Sins




 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
...That would just make other weapons be good against everything. As long as you have one value to compare against for both types of targets, there will always be a sweet spot in the middle where some guns will good against everything. The old wounding chart massively benefited spamming S7 and S6 weapons for the "good for everything" role...


S6/S7-spam was prevalent in 6th and 7th because of a defensive stat screw-up that meant there were huge numbers of effectively T6-8 models with two or three wounds and no save (AV10-12 vehicles) running around, and your spammable S6/S7 was still effective at forcing saves on smaller targets. That sweet spot where spamming the one weapon is an efficient answer to everything doesn't exist in 30k because higher AVs are more common, spammable S6/S7 isn't grotesquely underpriced, and your average monster has slightly higher Toughness and worse saves (3+/5++ on a Castellax versus 2+/3++ on a Riptide) so AT weapons are actually more efficient against them. If you can fix the problem by rebalancing the stats I don't think the to-wound table was at fault.


I will say 9th is VERY stingy with T8 for vehicles to the point where they bumped the Exorcist (which has been tougher than just about any other Rhino chassis vehicle since at least 5th) down to T7. Which is extra stupid because with Dark Lances and Presumably Bright Lances going to D3+3 in addition to the Melta change, T7 might as well be T5.

2500pts
2500
3000


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

 vipoid wrote:
The point I'm trying to make is that, with the possible exception of the core transport rules, perhaps it would be better to look at vehicles on an individual basis, rather than trying to find a one-size-fits-all solution? Someone already pointed out earlier, for example, that some of the proposed fixes for monsters might leave Nid monsters in around the right place but would also make some of the currently good monsters utterly broken. Hence, perhaps the focus should be on specifically fixing nid monsters, rather than trying to find a blanket solution.


I agree with you, but I can also see a few general trends.

-Transports suck because, like you said, they're generally not good at transporting. The elephant in the room here is that the utility of transports is greatly diminished by the size of the table relative to unit movement, but a change like you proposed (disembark after moving) would still greatly help, as would cost reduction where appropriate. It would also make a huge difference if transports were costed based on what they carry- a Chimera's worth a lot more for a squad of Veterans loaded to the gills with melta than for a regular Infantry Squad.

-Heavy tanks suck because their defensive profile isn't much different from transports. Look at prior editions for reference- if a Rhino eats a lascannon from the front, it's probably getting penetrated and killed. If a Russ takes that hit, there's only a 1 in 6 chance that it suffers a penetrating hit. In 8th/9th, both the Chimera and Russ are wounded by lascannons on 3s (or S6 or less on 5s), and they both get a 6+ save. So a Russ is functionally just a Chimera with 12 wounds instead of 10. Bump up its T, W, and/or Sv to make it actually more durable and then things start to change. In particular, boosting the Sv would help against stacking AP modifiers and curb the effectiveness of mid-Strength weapons without significantly affecting heavy AT guns. A W14 Russ with a 2+ would take 6 lascannon wounds on average to kill versus 3.4 for the Chimera, so that feels a bit more right- currently it's just 4.1 wounds to kill.

-It's a very similar story with Tyranid Monstrous Creatures. Once upon a time a Carnifex being T7, W4, and having a 3+ (or even 2+, with the right upgrade) save meant you had to throw a lot of high-S fire at it to slowly chew through its defenses, but the core rule changes hit them hard. Heavy bolters used to wound on a 6, give it a 3+ save, and do 1 of its 4 wounds; now they wound on a 5+, give it a 4+ save, and do 2 of its 8 wounds. Lascannons used to need a 2+ to take out 1 of its 4 wounds; now they need a 3+ to remove nearly half of its wounds on average. The survivability of Monstrous Creatures has dropped tremendously, as they're no longer difficult to wound with low-S stuff and able to absorb multiple wounds from high-S stuff. And that's not even getting into degrading profiles on the bigger critters.

But the problem, as always, is that it would be tough for GW to make tanks feel appropriately durable without making all-Knights armies really frustrating for TAC armies. A sideboard mechanic would do wonders for 40K's issues with skew, but that's a bit beyond the scope of these changes.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/20 15:31:22


 
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins




Tacoma, WA, USA

I largely agree with vipoid. The Core Rules are not the problem, the problem is a combination of the vehicle stats and the cost of anti-tank weapons. Either fix the vehicles individually or fix the cost of the anti-tank weapons.

It would make a big difference if all the Multi-Melta-equivalent weapons (like Melta-Rifles) and d3+3 Damage weapons went up 5 points each (10 for the dual versions). It would also make a difference if all the Battle Tanks based on transport hulls (Predator, Exorcist, Fire Prism) gained +1 Toughness and +1 Wound compared to the actual transports.
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins




 alextroy wrote:
I largely agree with vipoid. The Core Rules are not the problem, the problem is a combination of the vehicle stats and the cost of anti-tank weapons. Either fix the vehicles individually or fix the cost of the anti-tank weapons.

It would make a big difference if all the Multi-Melta-equivalent weapons (like Melta-Rifles) and d3+3 Damage weapons went up 5 points each (10 for the dual versions). It would also make a difference if all the Battle Tanks based on transport hulls (Predator, Exorcist, Fire Prism) gained +1 Toughness and +1 Wound compared to the actual transports.


Instead they went the opposite direction and made the tank that DID have +1T and +1 wound worse.

2500pts
2500
3000


 
   
Made in us
Daemonic Dreadnought




The dark hollows of Kentucky

ERJAK wrote:
 alextroy wrote:
I largely agree with vipoid. The Core Rules are not the problem, the problem is a combination of the vehicle stats and the cost of anti-tank weapons. Either fix the vehicles individually or fix the cost of the anti-tank weapons.

It would make a big difference if all the Multi-Melta-equivalent weapons (like Melta-Rifles) and d3+3 Damage weapons went up 5 points each (10 for the dual versions). It would also make a difference if all the Battle Tanks based on transport hulls (Predator, Exorcist, Fire Prism) gained +1 Toughness and +1 Wound compared to the actual transports.


Instead they went the opposite direction and made the tank that DID have +1T and +1 wound worse.

Gw's handling of the SoB tanks in their new codex says they think that the current durability and pricing on tanks is "ok", which is worrying. Likewise goes for the minor buffs for a few tanks and only ONE nerf for a super efficient multi-melta platform in the new CA. Apparently they think tanks are "fine".
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins




 Gadzilla666 wrote:
ERJAK wrote:
 alextroy wrote:
I largely agree with vipoid. The Core Rules are not the problem, the problem is a combination of the vehicle stats and the cost of anti-tank weapons. Either fix the vehicles individually or fix the cost of the anti-tank weapons.

It would make a big difference if all the Multi-Melta-equivalent weapons (like Melta-Rifles) and d3+3 Damage weapons went up 5 points each (10 for the dual versions). It would also make a difference if all the Battle Tanks based on transport hulls (Predator, Exorcist, Fire Prism) gained +1 Toughness and +1 Wound compared to the actual transports.


Instead they went the opposite direction and made the tank that DID have +1T and +1 wound worse.

Gw's handling of the SoB tanks in their new codex says they think that the current durability and pricing on tanks is "ok", which is worrying. Likewise goes for the minor buffs for a few tanks and only ONE nerf for a super efficient multi-melta platform in the new CA. Apparently they think tanks are "fine".


My ongoing assumption is that GW don't allow any weapons above S6 to fired during their playtesting if they have a model with 10 or more wounds on the board.

How can they not get that a Castigator is less durable than a unit of Eradicators in an actual practical gameplay situation? The difference between T5 and T7 is almost completely irrelevant and having wounds split over 3 bodies is worth more than the 2 extra wounds the castigator has. Add in the ability to get cover, move into ruins (i.e. the place where LoS blocking is most of the time) and having a much smaller profile and there basically isn't a real gameplay situation where I'm being shot at that I wouldn't feel safer with 3 Eradicators than a Castigator.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/06/20 16:59:49


2500pts
2500
3000


 
   
Made in mx
Tunneling Trygon




Mexico

 catbarf wrote:


-It's a very similar story with Tyranid Monstrous Creatures. Once upon a time a Carnifex being T7, W4, and having a 3+ (or even 2+, with the right upgrade) save meant you had to throw a lot of high-S fire at it to slowly chew through its defenses, but the core rule changes hit them hard. Heavy bolters used to wound on a 6, give it a 3+ save, and do 1 of its 4 wounds; now they wound on a 5+, give it a 4+ save, and do 2 of its 8 wounds. Lascannons used to need a 2+ to take out 1 of its 4 wounds; now they need a 3+ to remove nearly half of its wounds on average. The survivability of Monstrous Creatures has dropped tremendously, as they're no longer difficult to wound with low-S stuff and able to absorb multiple wounds from high-S stuff. And that's not even getting into degrading profiles on the bigger critters.


The Carnifex is kinda a bad example for that though. It was T6, not 7 (it had a T7 upgrade that it lost in 5th, same for the 2+ upgrade), and its resistance to small arms like lasguns duplicated with the changes to wounds.
In other words the Carnifex hasn't been a tanky Monster since 4th, long before 8th. It was hit hard by codex creep, and by Cruddace being a nid hater. At least in 8th and 9th it is relatively cheap.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/06/20 17:28:30


 
   
Made in us
Bounding Black Templar Assault Marine






 alextroy wrote:

It would make a big difference if all the Multi-Melta-equivalent weapons (like Melta-Rifles) and d3+3 Damage weapons went up 5 points each (10 for the dual versions). It would also make a difference if all the Battle Tanks based on transport hulls (Predator, Exorcist, Fire Prism) gained +1 Toughness and +1 Wound compared to the actual transports.

A 5 point bump for the d3+3 weapons would help keep anti-tank infantry appropriately costed.

I think a general +1 Toughness on all vehicles would help quite a bit with their survivability and +2 for super-heavies. Something like the below would help ensure most vehicles are not suffering from S7 weapons and forces Plasma weapons to take the dangerous strength in order to wound a transport.

T7 - Walkers & Light Transports (Chimera / Trukk)
T8 - Rhino Chassis / Predator
T9 - Leman Russ
T10 - Baneblade & Equivalent Superheavy

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/20 23:23:58


 
   
Made in us
Tunneling Trygon




Mexico

I disagree on transports getting a +1 T. As noted above their problem isn't their durability, it is that they do not work as transports.
   
Made in us
Bounding Black Templar Assault Marine






Agreed, not being to move then disembark is a very unfortunate design choice.

That said it's still very frustrating to see an armored transport get shredded by S7 D2 anti-infantry weapons.
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins




Tacoma, WA, USA

S7 D2 weapons aren't anti-personal weapons. That's an Autocannon, which is a light anti-tank weapon. You should be able to take out a transport with enough fire from them.
   
Made in us
Hurr! Ogryn Bone 'Ead!






JNAProductions wrote: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.


Huh, not a math person but fair. Really to me its swingy since on the one hand it can soak a 6 damage melta or lascannon shot, while the next turn the only thing it soaks is a 1 damage hot shot lasgun. And I should note I'm not against removing invulns entirely, I'm against using them as a bandaid fix since they effectively work to punish bringing the right tool (high ap weapons) against certain targets.

From a design perspective, assuming the wounds, strength, toughness, etc changes jump through, I'd find it really interesting to keep say daemons at slightly lower wounds but maintain their invuln (noting they'd still benefit from an increased overall wound pool with the rest of monsters and vehicles) - they are harder to wound due to warp shenanigans, but the hits that do make it through break their stability in the material realm.

vipoid wrote:I can't help but wonder whether part of the problem lies in people assuming that crap vehicles must all be crap for the exact same reason.

For example, I imagine many transports are crap not because of a vulnerability to anti-tank weapons but because they're expensive and they suck at their job. And I don't just mean one or two transports. I mean every transport in 9th sucks at its job by design. Making it so that troops can't disembark their transport if it moved is terrible, terrible design. It's not as if it had to be a double-move, either (just say that if the transport moved, its passengers can disembark 3" but cannot move or advance further in that Movement phase).


Ug, yeah not disembarking after transport movement is a thing that confuses me 4 years later. That and the removal of fire points on just about every transport. I miss Chimera Vets scooting around the field firing whatever they could out of the hatch until either the tank blew up or they got to a position they needed to be in.

This isn't helped with how Deep Strike is essentially free now and there are so many ways to send units in from reserve.

catbarf wrote:
 vipoid wrote:
The point I'm trying to make is that, with the possible exception of the core transport rules, perhaps it would be better to look at vehicles on an individual basis, rather than trying to find a one-size-fits-all solution? Someone already pointed out earlier, for example, that some of the proposed fixes for monsters might leave Nid monsters in around the right place but would also make some of the currently good monsters utterly broken. Hence, perhaps the focus should be on specifically fixing nid monsters, rather than trying to find a blanket solution.


I agree with you, but I can also see a few general trends.

-Transports suck because, like you said, they're generally not good at transporting. The elephant in the room here is that the utility of transports is greatly diminished by the size of the table relative to unit movement, but a change like you proposed (disembark after moving) would still greatly help, as would cost reduction where appropriate. It would also make a huge difference if transports were costed based on what they carry- a Chimera's worth a lot more for a squad of Veterans loaded to the gills with melta than for a regular Infantry Squad.

-Heavy tanks suck because their defensive profile isn't much different from transports. Look at prior editions for reference- if a Rhino eats a lascannon from the front, it's probably getting penetrated and killed. If a Russ takes that hit, there's only a 1 in 6 chance that it suffers a penetrating hit. In 8th/9th, both the Chimera and Russ are wounded by lascannons on 3s (or S6 or less on 5s), and they both get a 6+ save. So a Russ is functionally just a Chimera with 12 wounds instead of 10. Bump up its T, W, and/or Sv to make it actually more durable and then things start to change. In particular, boosting the Sv would help against stacking AP modifiers and curb the effectiveness of mid-Strength weapons without significantly affecting heavy AT guns. A W14 Russ with a 2+ would take 6 lascannon wounds on average to kill versus 3.4 for the Chimera, so that feels a bit more right- currently it's just 4.1 wounds to kill.

-It's a very similar story with Tyranid Monstrous Creatures. Once upon a time a Carnifex being T7, W4, and having a 3+ (or even 2+, with the right upgrade) save meant you had to throw a lot of high-S fire at it to slowly chew through its defenses, but the core rule changes hit them hard. Heavy bolters used to wound on a 6, give it a 3+ save, and do 1 of its 4 wounds; now they wound on a 5+, give it a 4+ save, and do 2 of its 8 wounds. Lascannons used to need a 2+ to take out 1 of its 4 wounds; now they need a 3+ to remove nearly half of its wounds on average. The survivability of Monstrous Creatures has dropped tremendously, as they're no longer difficult to wound with low-S stuff and able to absorb multiple wounds from high-S stuff. And that's not even getting into degrading profiles on the bigger critters.

But the problem, as always, is that it would be tough for GW to make tanks feel appropriately durable without making all-Knights armies really frustrating for TAC armies. A sideboard mechanic would do wonders for 40K's issues with skew, but that's a bit beyond the scope of these changes.


Now that Armingers are a thing, hopefully down the line GW will put the focus on Knights more on the support staff working to keep the big boys up and running. If a Knight army is 1-2 big Knights, a trio of Armingers, a few squads of household guard, and a squad of Sacristans running behind the big unit waving incense and carrying grapnels/ropes + tool boxes to do spot repairs on the big units, it would be a bit less of a skew while also giving Knight armies some in-codex tools to play objectives and gain board control.



Considering we are mid edition, the best we can hope for is that future codices throw in 2-6 extra wounds on most vehicles/monsters, allow for more 2+ saves, and 1-2 "mainline" units per codex might get a special stand alone rule. Though with the kind of arbitrary cut off of 18 wounds for line of sight cover, giving too many wounds could actually be a net loss for some tanks.
   
Made in gb
Killer Klaivex




The dark behind the eyes.

 kurhanik wrote:

Ug, yeah not disembarking after transport movement is a thing that confuses me 4 years later. That and the removal of fire points on just about every transport. I miss Chimera Vets scooting around the field firing whatever they could out of the hatch until either the tank blew up or they got to a position they needed to be in.


Yeah, I actually meant to bring up fire-points because it's another baffling decision.

Fire points are the difference between a Rhino being a mobile-bunker and a mobile brick.

They also represented one of the key differences between vehicles. The aforementioned Rhino, for example, was very cheap but armed with almost no weapons (so on paper it might have seemed very poorly armed, compared to Razorbacks and other transports with more/better guns). However, even a basic tactical squad could allow it to effectively be armed with a Plasmagun and Multi-melta. Yes, you might need to spend a turn moving it into position before you could fire both at full efficiency, but from turn 2 onwards you'd have two solid weapons with a good range, and even if the vehicle died you'd still have your tactical squad. Not bad for 35pts. (And yes, I'm aware that tactical squads were generally regarded as being sub-par in prior editions but that was hardly the Rhino's fault. ).

But as it stands, Rhinos have more than doubled in cost and yet bring far less utility.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/20 22:03:29


 the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"

 Argive wrote:
GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.


 Andilus Greatsword wrote:

"Prepare to open fire at that towering Wraithknight!"
"ARE YOU DAFT MAN!?! YOU MIGHT HIT THE MEN WHO COME UP TO ITS ANKLES!!!"


Akiasura wrote:
I hate to sound like a serial killer, but I'll be reaching for my friend occam's razor yet again.


 insaniak wrote:

You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.

Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
 
   
Made in us
Bounding Black Templar Assault Marine






 alextroy wrote:
S7 D2 weapons aren't anti-personal weapons. That's an Autocannon, which is a light anti-tank weapon. You should be able to take out a transport with enough fire from them.

It is used for anti-infantry by virtue of it being D2 but you're right that doesn't necessarily make it an anti-infantry weapon.

I don't consider an auto-cannon to be anti-tank weapon so I don't think it should be wounding tanks on 4s. Traditionally autocannons on ground-based vehicles are for clearing out hardened targets like a bunker or hitting lightly armored vehicles. I'm of the opinion the Rhino's should be a heavily armored transport, while Chimeras and Trukks would be lightly armored transports. I'll edit the previous post to reflect that since I realize I left out that distinction.
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







 The Red Hobbit wrote:
 alextroy wrote:
S7 D2 weapons aren't anti-personal weapons. That's an Autocannon, which is a light anti-tank weapon. You should be able to take out a transport with enough fire from them.

It is used for anti-infantry by virtue of it being D2 but you're right that doesn't necessarily make it an anti-infantry weapon.

I don't consider an auto-cannon to be anti-tank weapon so I don't think it should be wounding tanks on 4s. Traditionally autocannons on ground-based vehicles are for clearing out hardened targets like a bunker or hitting lightly armored vehicles. I'm of the opinion the Rhino's should be a heavily armored transport, while Chimeras and Trukks would be lightly armored transports. I'll edit the previous post to reflect that since I realize I left out that distinction.


If you look at the stat changes from 7th to 8th AV10 is roughly T6 (wounded on 4+ by S6), AV11 is roughly T7, etc., except for some reason the top of the table got compressed down so not only is the to-wound table more generous in 8th/9th all the tanks that had AV13-14 are now only AV12. The blurred lines between anti-personnel and anti-tank would also be less of an issue if GW decided to use T9 and T10 at all.

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 hk
Longtime Dakkanaut





Maybe the issue is we need to distinguish more between what is considered a lighter armored transport like a Rhino, which is what an autocannon is supposed to be good against. And a more heavily armored vehicle like a battle tank (like a predator tank).

Arguably, they already make some distinction for the heaviest of the tanks, like Leman Russ and Landraiders.

Or it could be that GW never saw Rhinos and Predator tanks as "heavily armored" vehicles in that sense at all. Ultimately, they have the same chassis. Why should the Predator tank be so much tougher than a Rhino in the first place?

Think of a castigator like putting many guns on a Rhino chassis. Points wise more expensive, power wise, higher, but the toughness doesn't go through the roof just because you added more guns. Because you added more firepower, not more durability.

Its possible that we may have had the wrong idea all along. Perhaps GW does not see Predator tanks as "heavy tanks". Heavy tanks are reserved for Leman Russ and Land Raiders type of vehicles only?
   
Made in us
Bounding Black Templar Assault Marine






Oh I didn't realize they compressed AV13-14, thanks for pointing that out.

I think you're right that GW rules team doesn't think of the Rhino as heavily armored. But it seems a bit silly that this vehicle which is a schoolbus for the premier power-armored super soldiers wasn't intended to weather fire from a common weapon like an autocannon.

From a 30k context the worlds they are subjugating can certainly muster something akin to the strength of an autocannon. You'd think that the Emperor's own super soldiers would have a vehicle that could handle fire from that and deliver them safely across the battlefield without exploding after a brief period of sustained fire.

I think it's most likely a sacred cow that bolters always used to have a chance to wound AV10, so if you make a Rhino T8 it makes that S4 bolter go from a 5+ to a 6+ to wound which is a no go.
   
Made in us
Exalted Beastlord




Eldenfirefly wrote:
Maybe the issue is we need to distinguish more between what is considered a lighter armored transport like a Rhino, which is what an autocannon is supposed to be good against. And a more heavily armored vehicle like a battle tank (like a predator tank).

Arguably, they already make some distinction for the heaviest of the tanks, like Leman Russ and Landraiders.

Or it could be that GW never saw Rhinos and Predator tanks as "heavily armored" vehicles in that sense at all. Ultimately, they have the same chassis. Why should the Predator tank be so much tougher than a Rhino in the first place?

Think of a castigator like putting many guns on a Rhino chassis. Points wise more expensive, power wise, higher, but the toughness doesn't go through the roof just because you added more guns. Because you added more firepower, not more durability.

Its possible that we may have had the wrong idea all along. Perhaps GW does not see Predator tanks as "heavy tanks". Heavy tanks are reserved for Leman Russ and Land Raiders type of vehicles only?


Well, the 8th edition codex specifically calls the Predator a Main Battle Tank, so... no.

Either way, it still doesn't address the reality that tanks are too weak and too squishy.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/21 00:48:17


Efficiency is the highest virtue. 
   
Made in us
Hurr! Ogryn Bone 'Ead!






 The Red Hobbit wrote:
Oh I didn't realize they compressed AV13-14, thanks for pointing that out.

I think you're right that GW rules team doesn't think of the Rhino as heavily armored. But it seems a bit silly that this vehicle which is a schoolbus for the premier power-armored super soldiers wasn't intended to weather fire from a common weapon like an autocannon.

From a 30k context the worlds they are subjugating can certainly muster something akin to the strength of an autocannon. You'd think that the Emperor's own super soldiers would have a vehicle that could handle fire from that and deliver them safely across the battlefield without exploding after a brief period of sustained fire.

I think it's most likely a sacred cow that bolters always used to have a chance to wound AV10, so if you make a Rhino T8 it makes that S4 bolter go from a 5+ to a 6+ to wound which is a no go.


Didn't a bolter wound AV10 on a 6 before? If anything they have an easier time of it.

And autocannons wounding vehicles in and of itself isn't terrible, their chip damage ability only really comes into play when either the costs for them, or the costs for true anti-tank, are completely out of sync. I remember 7th edition for example you could either chip hull points with multiple autocannon hits, or try to kill a tank in one go with a single lascannon hit for example, but the lascannons were far more expensive and far more high risk - high reward, while autocannons could chip tanks and also do good damage to infantry thanks to its high strength and multiple shots.

The only real aberration is that now s6 and 7 can wound vehicles formerly invulnerable to them, or needing to fish for 6s, on a 5+. Autocannon used to bounce straight off of the front of a Russ and need to get 6s for the side armor, now they wound on a 5+.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

 The Red Hobbit wrote:
I think you're right that GW rules team doesn't think of the Rhino as heavily armored. But it seems a bit silly that this vehicle which is a schoolbus for the premier power-armored super soldiers wasn't intended to weather fire from a common weapon like an autocannon.


Autocannons have always blown open Rhinos like overripe canteloupe. Heck, I use Mauler Cannons (super-heavy-bolters, only S6) in Heresy to take them out.

The Rhino is a battle-bus for soldiers who don't need a supremely heavily armored vehicle to deliver them safely into combat, just something faster than they are that can get them to where they're needed. It's Guard that get the IFV with quasi-tank armor so as to stand up to enemy fire, because once the troops disembark they're dead meat. It's too reductive and borderline flanderization to assume the heavily armored super soldier faction needs heavily armored super transports too.
   
Made in us
Monster-Slaying Daemonhunter





I would be quite happy with the toughness system changing to:-

Str more than double Toughness - No wound possible. (No more lasguns wounding tanks...)
Str double Toughness - 6+ to wound
Str less than Toughness - 5+ to wound
Str the same as toughness - 4+ to wound
Str higher than Toughness - 3+ to wound
Str double Toughness - 2+ to wound
Str more than double toughness - Auto wound (yes lascannons vaporise Guardsmen)



So my only concern with this is that things like Primarchs, Telemons, and DPs would be auto-wound everything in the game on melee strikes and a single Telemon for 300 points would drop units twice the cost with zero risk.

I think we have too much offense in this edition as is. If we made tanks extremely durable that MIGHT make them more valuable. Say double the wounds? Is a T8 Leman Russ with 24 wounds be ANY more difficult to kill than a Baneblade is currently?
   
Made in us
Bounding Black Templar Assault Marine






 catbarf wrote:

Autocannons have always blown open Rhinos like overripe canteloupe. Heck, I use Mauler Cannons (super-heavy-bolters, only S6) in Heresy to take them out.

Yes but should they? A transport is useful when it can transport you but it's not useful when it explodes after first contact. Stepping away from the tabletop for a moment those vehicles should be able to cross long distances weathering some fire. If a few autocannons can burst a Rhino like a delicious cantaloupe as soon as it's in effective range it's kind of pointless as an armored transport. After the melon bursts that same autocannon is very effective at popping those Space Marines like overripe blueberries.

From an imperial drawing board standpoint if enemies have guns that turn our soldiers into red mist they should have invented a vehicle that transports them past the autocannon. Perhaps they could use a chassis for a predator main battle tank and strip off all the weaponry for speed. Wait..

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/21 01:35:32


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

 The Red Hobbit wrote:
Yes but should they? A transport is useful when it can transport you but it's not useful when it explodes after first contact. Stepping away from the tabletop for a moment those vehicles should be able to cross long distances weathering some fire.


If you're talking real-world logic, that's generally not true. It is very common for armored personnel carriers (APCs) to only be armored against rifle fire, with no capability to withstand higher-caliber munitions. Their purpose is to deliver troops quickly and get out, not to weather fire indefinitely. The Rhino is basically an upscaled M113 APC. The Razorback isn't far off from a Bradley IFV. Speed, sometimes firepower, not a lot of armor.

If you're talking in-universe, that's not what Rhinos are for. Rhinos facilitate outmaneuvering the enemy and delivering Marines to advantageous positions. Marines primarily fight dismounted; that's the whole reason they wear power armor to begin with.

 The Red Hobbit wrote:
From an imperial drawing board standpoint if enemies have guns that turn our soldiers into red mist they should have invented a vehicle that transports them past the autocannon.


That's what the Land Raider is. It's very good at it.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/21 01:42:45


 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: