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.

 The Red Hobbit wrote:
Yes but should they?
The Autocannon is a light anti-tank weapon. The Rhino is an APC, which is basically a light tank without the guns.

So yes, ACs should kill Rhinos.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/21 02:09:24


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

 
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







 The Red Hobbit wrote:
...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.


I really don't think that's the case, given that the Rhino was 11/11/10 in 3rd-7th so bolters could only damage it at all from the back.

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
Daemonic Dreadnought




The dark hollows of Kentucky

 The Red Hobbit wrote:
 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..

How many autocannons is a "few". It takes an average of 30 AC shots from a BS3 platform to kill a Rhino. That means that 3 full squads of AC Havocs, 375 points and a Battalion's full allotment of HS slots, can't kill a 85 PPM transport in a single round of shooting.

However, it takes an average of 8 melta shots outside of melta range, or 6 inside of melta range. So, 240 points of MM Attack Bikes outside of 12, or 180 points inside of 12, or 150 points of Heavy Melta-Rifle Eradicators at 24. The problem isn't autocannons.
   
Made in us
Bounding Black Templar Assault Marine






 catbarf wrote:
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.
Sure, which is why I'd have no issue with an autocannon putting holes in a chimera. For a real world perspective if the Pentagon had access to super soldiers that cost $100M/ea to genetically engineer and another $100m/ea to fully equip the bean counters would absolutely demand that whatever vehicle is transporting them anywhere near a warzone be sturdy enough to withstand a common autocannon to protect the investment.

Understood they're in powerarmor but autocannons are pretty darn good at putting holes through it and liquefying the marine underneath.


That's what the Land Raider is. It's very good at it.
Haha fair point. Sidenote: The Bradley is a godawful frankenstein vehicle. If you enjoy Carey Elwes and Kelsey Grammer highly recommend watching Pentagon Wars for a good laugh sometime.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
I really don't think that's the case, given that the Rhino was 11/11/10 in 3rd-7th so bolters could only damage it at all from the back.
True, I remember my Grey Hunters being strong enough to punch a hole into a rhino but I had forgotten the AV10 was only the rear armor, thanks for the correction!

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
How many autocannons is a "few". It takes an average of 30 AC shots from a BS3 platform to kill a Rhino. That means that 3 full squads of AC Havocs, 375 points and a Battalion's full allotment of HS slots, can't kill a 85 PPM transport in a single round of shooting.

However, it takes an average of 8 melta shots outside of melta range, or 6 inside of melta range. So, 240 points of MM Attack Bikes outside of 12, or 180 points inside of 12, or 150 points of Heavy Melta-Rifle Eradicators at 24. The problem isn't autocannons.
Hey thanks for doing the math! It's certainly more than a few, you've convinced me of that. Multi-meltas are certainly the elephant in the room, and I don't argue at all they are the main reason tanks are wimpy at the moment.

I would just like it if autocannons were less effective against Rhinos and Predators. Having it felled by a multimelta or lascannon is expected but having the vehicle brought down by a common autocannon is anticlimactic for its final few wounds. Of the many suggestions earlier either a -1 DMG or a +1T would solve that issue for me.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/06/21 02:46:49


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

 The Red Hobbit wrote:
For a real world perspective if the Pentagon had access to super soldiers that cost $100M/ea to genetically engineer and another $100m/ea to fully equip the bean counters would absolutely demand that whatever vehicle is transporting them anywhere near a warzone be sturdy enough to withstand a common autocannon to protect the investment.


DOD spends a ridiculous amount of money to train and equip SOF, and then sticks them in Humvees. Humvees don't stop autocannon rounds. They also don't organize your taxes, serve ice cream sundaes, or do anything else outside their mission profile. You stick expensive highly-trained SOF guys in Humvees so they can get where they need to go as quickly as possible, where uparmoring would be a detriment to the mission rather than an asset. If you need to re-enact D-Day, you put them in something more survivable.

If you need to deploy your cadre of shock and awe Space Marines as rapidly as possible, you use Rhinos to get them to the action and then bug out. If you need to deliver them through a hail of anti-tank fire, you use a Land Raider.

The fact that a Rhino is vulnerable to anti-tank munitions isn't any more of a problem than the fact that it can't fly. Outside of scope. Marines are not so fragile that they need to be kept safely within an MBT at all time; Rhinos can handle the sort of firepower that they're likely to run into in the asymmetric style of engagement Marines prefer. If the environment is so hot that massed AT is in play then you don't want your Marines out there to begin with, because they'll be toast as soon as they disembark. And again, if you need that durability, you use a Land Raider.

Remember, Marines aren't the Guard. Their transports primarily exist to get their super-special-forces infantry to where they can do the most damage as quickly as possible. If they sacrifice mobility for durability they're at risk of getting bogged down and fixed by a numerically superior enemy, depriving them of their key advantages of force concentration and high operational tempo. A slower, armored Rhino would be designed for a fight that Marines don't want to be in to begin with.

Btw seen Pentagon Wars several times; currently living it.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/21 03:57:02


 
   
Made in ca
Legendary Master of the Chapter





I know bringing back facing brings it's own issues but maybe a simple "-X to wound rolls vs attacks at the front" rule for vehicles would work, you could even give each vehicle a varient of the rule depending (so a land raider might get a -2 to wound rolls from all sides, just for example. where a Lemen russ might be -2 to front, -1 from sides" etc)

Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two 
   
Made in us
Bounding Black Templar Assault Marine






 catbarf wrote:
Btw seen Pentagon Wars several times; currently living it.


Hahaha, I feel your pain then.

Switching from transports to Tanks. What's your opinion on the autocannon vs a Predator? I personally don't see the autocannons as an anti-tank but then again I'm thinking in terms of the 21st century and not the 41st millenium, perhaps in the future these are 90mm death rounds rather than 20-30mm.
   
Made in ca
Legendary Master of the Chapter





 The Red Hobbit wrote:
 catbarf wrote:
Btw seen Pentagon Wars several times; currently living it.


Hahaha, I feel your pain then.

Switching from transports to Tanks. What's your opinion on the autocannon vs a Predator? I personally don't see the autocannons as an anti-tank but then again I'm thinking in terms of the 21st century and not the 41st millenium, perhaps in the future these are 90mm death rounds rather than 20-30mm.


depends on the calibur of the autocanon, I mean the A-10s gun is an autocanon and NO ONE questions that things ability to bust tanks

Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two 
   
Made in us
Bounding Black Templar Assault Marine






Absolutely, depleted uranium rounds from that avenger gatling cannon can saw a tank in half.

I was referring more to the autocannons you'd see on ground vehicles which are typically multi-role vice the A-10 antitank mission
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins




Tacoma, WA, USA

 The Red Hobbit wrote:
 catbarf wrote:
Btw seen Pentagon Wars several times; currently living it.


Hahaha, I feel your pain then.

Switching from transports to Tanks. What's your opinion on the autocannon vs a Predator? I personally don't see the autocannons as an anti-tank but then again I'm thinking in terms of the 21st century and not the 41st millenium, perhaps in the future these are 90mm death rounds rather than 20-30mm.
In old 40K terms, Autocannons were of some use against a Predator which was 13/11/10 Armor. That's mostly bouncing off the reinforced forward armor with a chance to penetrate the side/rear.

IMHO, GW fell down a little on the armor conversion to T/Sv. Somehow we got the following results:
  • Rhino: 11/11/10 = T7 W10 Sv 3+
  • Chimera: 12/10/10 = T7 W10 Sv 3+
  • Predator: 13/11/10 = T7 W11 Sv 3+
  • Wave Serpent: 12/12/10 = T7 W13 Sv 3+
  • Leman Russ: 14/13/10 = T8 W12 Sv 3+
  • Land Raider: 14/14/14 = T8 W16 Sv 2+
  • This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/06/21 04:52:22


     
       
    Made in us
    Bounding Black Templar Assault Marine






    Thanks for the refresher! I had forgotten Wave serpents were higher AV than Rhinos on both the front and side.

    Based on that list it looks like a case could be made for T8 Predator & T9 Leman Russ / Land Raider, possibly even a T10 Baneblade. Has there ever been any statements from GW for why they're reluctant to put vehicles over T8?
       
    Made in us
    Daemonic Dreadnought




    The dark hollows of Kentucky

     The Red Hobbit wrote:
    Thanks for the refresher! I had forgotten Wave serpents were higher AV than Rhinos on both the front and side.

    Based on that list it looks like a case could be made for T8 Predator & T9 Leman Russ / Land Raider, possibly even a T10 Baneblade. Has there ever been any statements from GW for why they're reluctant to put vehicles over T8?

    The only statement from gw on their opinion on T9 tanks was when they cranked the prices on all of the T9 Legion Super Heavys up by about 50%, thus making them almost completely unusable, and then left them there to rot for the rest of 8th. In 9th, they dropped all of them save the Mastodon down to T8 and gave them prices that were more fair. Gw doesn't like anything to have T9 naturally, requiring some kind of ability to get it, like how Chaos Knights can get by taking MWs. They even dropped the Warhound and Reaver Titans down to T8. So T9 Land Raiders and Leman Russes aren't going to happen.
       
    Made in sg
    Longtime Dakkanaut





    Let's also not forget that Space Marines are meant for quick deployment, with drop pods and all. That's always been their fighting style. Hence, their vehicles are designed to be on the "lighter" side so that they can be fast and mobile. This is different from the heavier Leman Russ tanks of IG which don't require the kind of quick insertion and strike that space marines are famed for.

    Land Raiders are the heavy stuff that space marines bring out when they want heavy armored tanks in combat.

    So, again, I have to ask. a predator is basically a Rhino chasis with heavier guns stuck on it. That makes it more deadly in shooting, but not necessarily tougher. And this may be in keeping with the fighting style philosophy of space marines in general.

    Maybe they wanted a tank vehicle that hits hard, but is light enough for easy transportation and also fast and mobile. So, in that sense, a predator tank designed from a Rhino chassis is more appropriate to their fighting style than a Leman Russ.
       
    Made in it
    Gargantuan Gargant




    Italy

    To make transports worthy an interesting solution would be to remove ALL deep strike and outflank shenanigans except for a couple of specialists per codex and to halve ALL movement stats from infantries. After all if units can reliably get wherever they need to be just by walking what's the purpose of a transport?


     
       
    Made in ca
    Deranged Necron Destroyer






     Blackie wrote:
    To make transports worthy an interesting solution would be to remove ALL deep strike and outflank shenanigans except for a couple of specialists per codex and to halve ALL movement stats from infantries. After all if units can reliably get wherever they need to be just by walking what's the purpose of a transport?


    *Cries in Necron*

    Girl Gamers are the best! 
       
    Made in au
    Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






    Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

     Gadzilla666 wrote:
    Gw doesn't like anything to have T9 naturally...
    Which makes zero sense in a world where most of the time higher T just means you wound on 5's. It's like they're stuck in the mindset that 6's to wound, and even the inability to wound, are still part of the game.

    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

     H.B.M.C. wrote:
     Gadzilla666 wrote:
    Gw doesn't like anything to have T9 naturally...
    Which makes zero sense in a world where most of the time higher T just means you wound on 5's. It's like they're stuck in the mindset that 6's to wound, and even the inability to wound, are still part of the game.

    Probably because they don't want S8 AT weapons like meltas and lances wounding on 5s, and some factions don't have much access to shooting weapons with strength higher than S8. All I know is they hate T9 tanks. How else do you explain what they did to the Legion Super Heavys in 8th edition?
       
    Made in it
    Gargantuan Gargant




    Italy

    I don't think I'd like meltas/lances wounding on 5s. Generally I hate rolling tons of dice for little result, especially if we're talking about powerful weapons. I'd rather remove the chance to spam those weapons (and their buffs) instead, reducing their rate of fire rather than their efficiency.

    Having 10 melta shots wounding on 4s against T8 IMHO is much better than having 15 melta shots wounding on 5s against the same target.

    T7 and T8 are fine as stats. What it's not fine it's the number of wounds of vehicles and monsters. A unit of three T5 3W dudes shouldn't be more durable than a tank and yet it is a it's basically got the same number of wounds but divided into three bodies and typically such unit is also cheaper than a tank.

    Make those dudes 60-70ppm plus upgrades or increase tanks' wounds by 50% if not more.

    Now that there are infantries with 3 or 4 wounds, standard characters with 6 wounds and weapons that deal 3-8 damage per shot it doesn't look fair that a tank has only 10-16 wounds. It should have 20-32 instead.

    Tanks' problem is a combination of multiple factors: there's little purpose for transports, some infantries can do the same job but better and they don't have enough wounds.

    This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/21 07:36:26



     
       
    Made in gb
    Fixture of Dakka







     The Red Hobbit wrote:
    Has there ever been any statements from GW for why they're reluctant to put vehicles over T8?


    It's a question I want to ask the next time I'm at a seminar with a Q&A session - so next year, hopefully.

    2021 Plog - Here we go again... - my fifth attempt at a Dakka PLOG

    My [url=https://pileofpotential.com/dysartes]Pile of Potential[/url - updates ongoing...

    Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.


     Kanluwen wrote:
    This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.

    Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army... 
       
    Made in gb
    Longtime Dakkanaut




    I feel GW won't push up T because it messes with factions that only have access to S8 anti-tank weapons. Wounding on 5s with your dedicated anti-tank weapons feels bad and surely is bad. I guess you could argue its (on average) the same as wounding on 4s and then giving your opponent a 5++ - but... still.

    And if someone responds "well then just buff those weapons to S10/12/16" surely we are going round in circles.

    I'm not sure Transports are all bad - I just think that they have specific game uses, so you only want them for specific units serving a specific strategic purpose rather than the "everything might as well get a transport" of 5th-7th. Some are perhaps overcosted for that purpose - and I think bringing back fire points might help in that regard.
       
    Made in gb
    Ship's Officer





    Bristol (UK)

    Modern autocannons are of very limited effectiveness against MBTs, that's why Bradleys carry TOWs and A10s carry Mavericks.

    I think autocannons aren't in a bad place right now with regards to anti-vehicle work. Although it's notable that, due to it's rate of fire, heavy bolters are superior weapons against anything that isn't T6.
       
    Made in us
    Longtime Dakkanaut





    Their simple conversions of lots of weapons really leaves some in a poor state. Like Heavy bolters being roughly on par with auto cannons vs vehicles most of the time, is a little odd to me.Multi Lasers having seemingly no real use is another odd thing.

    We have to wait and see what they do but some of these weapons are in some needed of a touch up, I'd even go so far as to say Missile launchers need some love, as most of the time some choices due to cost or other factors end up feeling just like always the worst choice, despite cost for the roles you'd take them for.
       
    Made in us
    Decrepit Dakkanaut







     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.


    You know, I actually do have my immersion ruined by those things, and can point out the posts in other threads (where such things would be on topic) where I have said exactly that.

    The only thing with the ranges is that ground scale in 28mm is super wonky in general so I'm more willing to let it slide just because 40k would be unplayable if they kept to real ground scale like other games do. But if the other realism problems are all fixed? This is the next one on the list.

    But sure. Assume that because I post about tanks and immersion in a thread about tanks that I don't care about something else (even though in threads about that I have explicitly stated I care about those other things).
       
    Made in us
    Longtime Dakkanaut




    Annandale, VA

    BrianDavion wrote:depends on the calibur of the autocanon, I mean the A-10s gun is an autocanon and NO ONE questions that things ability to bust tanks


    On that note, the supposed tank-busting ability of the A-10's 30mm autocannon is and always has been wildly exaggerated. Here's a coloring book for A-10 pilots from 1977 that describes the difficulty in inflicting damage to a T-62, let alone any of the more modern tanks. They're relegated to going for a mission-kill on tracks or optics since penetrating armor is out of the question.

    Autocannons aren't for tank-killing; that's why A-10s carry anti-tank missiles. They're meant for chewing up emplacements and lightly-armored vehicles.

    Granted this is 40K and things may not align to the real-world, but optimally I would have autocannons as a real threat to things like Rhinos, while minimally effective against Leman Russes. The old AV system did that pretty well, but you could replicate it under the new system by allowing better saves than 3+ for heavier vehicles, so that AP-1 just doesn't cut it for inflicting significant damage.


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
    Also, since I missed it a few pages ago, Altruizine's straw man sucks.

    'Everyone who wants tanks to be better is either a weird history wonk or a powergamer, and either way they're arguing in bad faith' is a garbage take.

    This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/06/21 14:42:24


     
       
    Made in us
    Bounding Black Templar Assault Marine






    It's a fantastic coloring book with some tongue in cheek humor. Since the A-10 has been perpetually on the chopping block there's some good information floating around out there, even Wikipedia has the penetration distance which is less than you'd expect. Against old light WW2 tanks it will perforate but the Avenger autocannon will not do anything to the front armor of a MBT like the Abrams or T-90, but it can still land a mobility kill from the rear or the side. But this is 40K! We don't deal in mobility kills only cataclysmic kills, the kind that explode on a 6!

    It's a shame they got rid of the AV system. I understand them wanting to streamline the system; fights around whether you were hitting the side or rear armor abounded. I just wish they had just cut out side-armor and left it as Front and Rear, with a very narrow window for rear armor, that way a MBT like the Predator could ignore autocannons except from the rear.
       
    Made in us
    Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







    Tyel wrote:
    I feel GW won't push up T because it messes with factions that only have access to S8 anti-tank weapons. Wounding on 5s with your dedicated anti-tank weapons feels bad and surely is bad. I guess you could argue its (on average) the same as wounding on 4s and then giving your opponent a 5++ - but... still.

    And if someone responds "well then just buff those weapons to S10/12/16" surely we are going round in circles.

    I'm not sure Transports are all bad - I just think that they have specific game uses, so you only want them for specific units serving a specific strategic purpose rather than the "everything might as well get a transport" of 5th-7th. Some are perhaps overcosted for that purpose - and I think bringing back fire points might help in that regard.


    I don't think we're going 'round in circles. The point is to differentiate AT from other weapons, if by buffing armour's T you also have to buff the Strength on some dedicated AT weapons I think we would have accomplished our goal.

    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
    Tunneling Trygon




    Mexico

     AnomanderRake wrote:


    I don't think we're going 'round in circles. The point is to differentiate AT from other weapons, if by buffing armour's T you also have to buff the Strength on some dedicated AT weapons I think we would have accomplished our goal.


    That is your point, but that point makes nothing about the issue of multi-meltas.

    That is the primary divide of this thread. Those that want to address the issue of tanks on a competitive level, and those that want to address it from a immersive level.
       
    Made in at
    Warped Arch Heretic of Chaos





     Tyran wrote:
     AnomanderRake wrote:


    I don't think we're going 'round in circles. The point is to differentiate AT from other weapons, if by buffing armour's T you also have to buff the Strength on some dedicated AT weapons I think we would have accomplished our goal.


    That is your point, but that point makes nothing about the issue of multi-meltas.

    That is the primary divide of this thread. Those that want to address the issue of tanks on a competitive level, and those that want to address it from a immersive level.


    You can do both though.
    indeed it would be breaking the stat compression that is going on right now and make it easier to balance and make the durability / devastation work.

    The sad fact right now is, that because of the stat compression for tanks the most durable tanks are those with invuls.

    Hence why the venomcrawler for it's new and improved pricetag is one of the more durable things in this game... despite being an walking doomfuel spider bloodbag...

    https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page
    A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.

     Daedalus81 wrote:

    In the 41st millennium there is only overpriced hamberders.

     
       
    Made in us
    Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







     Tyran wrote:
     AnomanderRake wrote:


    I don't think we're going 'round in circles. The point is to differentiate AT from other weapons, if by buffing armour's T you also have to buff the Strength on some dedicated AT weapons I think we would have accomplished our goal.


    That is your point, but that point makes nothing about the issue of multi-meltas.

    That is the primary divide of this thread. Those that want to address the issue of tanks on a competitive level, and those that want to address it from a immersive level.


    I don't have time to read through all ten Space Marine books to find all the buff stacks that will make whatever change I suggest to meltas irrelevant. Would it help if the Primaris didn't consist entirely of one-weapon spam squads so small buffs/nerfs weren't multiplied to the point of making whole squads OP/useless all at once? If Eradicators were a 1/5 (or even 2/5) upgrade for Heavy Intercessors instead of their own unit, say?

    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
    Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord





    In My Lab

    Not Online!!! wrote:
     Tyran wrote:
     AnomanderRake wrote:


    I don't think we're going 'round in circles. The point is to differentiate AT from other weapons, if by buffing armour's T you also have to buff the Strength on some dedicated AT weapons I think we would have accomplished our goal.


    That is your point, but that point makes nothing about the issue of multi-meltas.

    That is the primary divide of this thread. Those that want to address the issue of tanks on a competitive level, and those that want to address it from a immersive level.


    You can do both though.
    indeed it would be breaking the stat compression that is going on right now and make it easier to balance and make the durability / devastation work.

    The sad fact right now is, that because of the stat compression for tanks the most durable tanks are those with invuls.

    Hence why the venomcrawler for it's new and improved pricetag is one of the more durable things in this game... despite being an walking doomfuel spider bloodbag...
    I mean... T7 W10 3+/5++ for 110 points compared to T8 W16 2+ for 265 points. Land Raider is just barely over 2.4 times the cost, so let's check durability.

    Spoiler:
    All numbers needed are HITS, not shots.
    Against anything S4, it takes twice the damage BEFORE saves. Even against a theoretical S4 AP-5 weapon, the Land Raider is still a little more than twice as durable.
    Against a Heavy Bolter, you need 30 to kill a Crawler as compared to 72 for the Land Raider. So the Land Raider has basically the same durability per point.
    Against an Autocannon, you need 20 to kill the Crawler as compared to 72 for the Land Raider. Land Raider is MORE durable per point.
    Against a Krak Missile, you need 6.75 to kill the Crawler as compared to 20 for the Land Raider.
    Against a Dark Lance, you need 4.5 to kill the Crawler as compared to 9.6 to kill the Land Raider (assuming 4 failed saves are needed-drop to 7.2 if they get a little lucky on damage rolls and only need 3). So here the Land Raider isn't quite as durable per point.
    Against a Lascannon, you need 6.75 to kill the Crawler, as compared to 11.25 to kill the Land Raider. So again, not quite as durable per point. Notably, they do get the same save here.
    Looking at all that, I don't think the Venomcrawler is some massive outlier in durability. It doesn't have a ton of Wounds, a great Toughness value, or a particularly good armor save. It's no more durable than a Rhino unless you get AP-3 involved or multiple turns (when its regen can kick in) and less durable than a Land Raider per point against anything short of high-powered S8+ weapons. Anything smaller than a Lance or a Lascannon, it's easier to kill a Venomcrawler than a Land Raider.

    Does this mean a Land Raider is good? No-but its issues aren't really durability.

    Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
       
     
    Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
    Go to: