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.

This has been bothering me for a rather long time. We know that most tanks in 40k move at the same speed or slower than modern tanks, we also know that anything considering itself to be an even halfway modern tank or fighting vehicle can fire on the move with good accuracy. So why can't tanks fire all their weapons all the time as they would be able to IRL?

Some might state that this is for balance purposes, but I doubt that because balance and rules are simple enough to change as needed. So is there some reason why tanks in 40k can't fire on the move in spite of having better sensors and the potential for better fire control than we have IRL?

They can't because that was the straw that broke the camel's back for why I don't play 40k any more.

I would have thought the absurd cost and ever changing rules would have done that. xP

Because suddenly Mech IG has just dominated the entire 40k table top game.

Who says Imperium tanks are so much more technologically advanced than present day? Remember, Imperium technology has been declining for over 10,000 years. They maintain their machines by praying to them.

Tau can do it - vehicle multi-trackers are explicitly described as advanced sensor suites for weapons tracking on the move.

Chaos Lord Gir wrote:Because suddenly Mech IG has just dominated the entire 40k table top game.

Wouldn't be that hard to balance with either points costs, or simply by retooling the games rules. Hell redoing the game's rules from scratch wouldn't even take that long. Looking at another gaming company we can see that wizards can push out new books for D&D 4e every month with original art assets along with doing regular errata. What's the excuse that GW is hiding behind?

Also, if it's such a huge imbalance why do most other game systems, including those designed to represent tanks lacking anything close to modern fire control, allow tanks to fire on the move with more freedom than 40k?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LoneGamer wrote:Who says Imperium tanks are so much more technologically advanced than present day? Remember, Imperium technology has been declining for over 10,000 years. They maintain their machines by praying to them.

Tau can do it - vehicle multi-trackers are explicitly described as advanced sensor suites for weapons tracking on the move.

Hmm, do we have sensor tech IRL approaching the level of an auspex device? Nope. How about things like servo skulls which show a higher degree of automation than current machines? Nope. What about servitors and other things that are either sentient machines or biological beings that have mainly mechanical brains? Nope. How about servos which are as light and powerful as those found in powered armor? Nope again. Hmm, it seems that 40k has everything needed to make turrets which can track on the move. They have the sensor tech, they have the servos to move the weapons, and they have compact and powerful computational devices.

Tanks could fire most of their weapons, that was called 4th edition! Really trying to put reality and 40k together doesnt make too much sense. For a game 30k years in the future, its funny that most battles are won by 2 ground forces that slug it out with infantry and tanks at close quarters.

It was probably a balance standpoint I suppose that back then there were too many defensive weapons. Although I think S5 should be the cutoff point so that a lot of the machine gun weapons arent left to the dust on many vehicles.

Going cruising speed, it would probably make fast vehicles less special

kenshin620 wrote:Tanks could fire most of their weapons, that was called 4th edition! Really trying to put reality and 40k together doesnt make too much sense. For a game 30k years in the future, its funny that most battles are won by 2 ground forces that slug it out with infantry and tanks at close quarters.

It was probably a balance standpoint I suppose that back then there were too many defensive weapons. Although I think S5 should be the cutoff point so that a lot of the machine gun weapons arent left to the dust on many vehicles.

Going cruising speed, it would probably make fast vehicles less special

Not really, while defensive weapons were able to fire anything that had a weapon heavier than a heavy bolter couldn't which seems rather stupid. As for reality and 40k, while I know they mix like oil and water that really shouldn't be the case. There isn't and never has been a reason why the rules can't represent fluff in a more accurate way than they do now.

As for firing at cruising speed making fast vehicles less special I have to laugh. Given that guardsmen are basic humans and can potentially cover 18" of movement per turn these 'fast' tanks are hardly that given that I doubt the guardsmen are running at anything even close to the current human maximum of ~27mph.

Well with this being said, why can't I run and shoot at the same time? Why if I'm laying down can't I shoot back blindly/wildly? Why if fighting at night do I just not shoot sometimes instead of at least trying to hit something?

These are things that lead to that silly little thing called game balance. Just because another game lets their tanks move all out and fire everything doesn't mean it's conducive for WH40k to do it as well. I'm guessing you're talking about Flames of War maybe?

Balance issues I assume. I was under the impression that the LRBT had "lumbering behemoth" which allows it to fire all its weapons in exchange for having to roll a d6 for any movement beyond 6". But yeah, orks would be fethed if all tanks could move and shoot all their weapons. Footsloggin armies would be even less viable and the whole game would devolve into who had the better tanks.

Kevin949 wrote:Well with this being said, why can't I run and shoot at the same time? Why if I'm laying down can't I shoot back blindly/wildly? Why if fighting at night do I just not shoot sometimes instead of at least trying to hit something?

These are things that lead to that silly little thing called game balance. Just because another game lets their tanks move all out and fire everything doesn't mean it's conducive for WH40k to do it as well. I'm guessing you're talking about Flames of War maybe?

So you're saying that it's somehow impossible to add more realism to 40k on the tabletop but you're not giving a whole lot of reasons why it can't be done. After all, other systems manage balance while having more realistic rules and do so using a d6 based system. Thus making the game more intuitive isn't impossible or even hard to do. I'd even argue that 28mm is playing on too small a table as is and either tables should increase to 12' by 8' or the scale should change to give more realistic ranges and movement rates.

While FoW is the first that comes to mind I bet you more games than not have rules that are more realistic and balanced than GW's.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

gpfunk wrote:Balance issues I assume. I was under the impression that the LRBT had "lumbering behemoth" which allows it to fire all its weapons in exchange for having to roll a d6 for any movement beyond 6". But yeah, orks would be fethed if all tanks could move and shoot all their weapons. Footsloggin armies would be even less viable and the whole game would devolve into who had the better tanks.

Funny that other games don't have these issues then. FoW as the prime example has tank companies facing down infantry hordes and is considered to be rather well balanced. Why is it so hard for W to write decent rules? This isn't even to mention playtesting and proofreading them...

Norade wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:Well with this being said, why can't I run and shoot at the same time? Why if I'm laying down can't I shoot back blindly/wildly? Why if fighting at night do I just not shoot sometimes instead of at least trying to hit something?

These are things that lead to that silly little thing called game balance. Just because another game lets their tanks move all out and fire everything doesn't mean it's conducive for WH40k to do it as well. I'm guessing you're talking about Flames of War maybe?

So you're saying that it's somehow impossible to add more realism to 40k on the tabletop but you're not giving a whole lot of reasons why it can't be done. After all, other systems manage balance while having more realistic rules and do so using a d6 based system. Thus making the game more intuitive isn't impossible or even hard to do. I'd even argue that 28mm is playing on too small a table as is and either tables should increase to 12' by 8' or the scale should change to give more realistic ranges and movement rates.

While FoW is the first that comes to mind I bet you more games than not have rules that are more realistic and balanced than GW's.

Yes, it's impossible because nothing in this game is "real" at all. So adding realism to a game that is based off of none is...well, absurd. "Other Systems" aren't this one. Other systems have entirely different rule sets to balance out this one change you've mentioned.

Also not to mention that this would add a HUGE benefit for only a select few armies and be a huge detriment to the rest.

I also do not doubt your claim that other games have more balanced rules. Especially considering that it is only just recently that GW is finally getting around to updating 6+ year old codices.

Kevin949 wrote:

Norade wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:Well with this being said, why can't I run and shoot at the same time? Why if I'm laying down can't I shoot back blindly/wildly? Why if fighting at night do I just not shoot sometimes instead of at least trying to hit something?

These are things that lead to that silly little thing called game balance. Just because another game lets their tanks move all out and fire everything doesn't mean it's conducive for WH40k to do it as well. I'm guessing you're talking about Flames of War maybe?

So you're saying that it's somehow impossible to add more realism to 40k on the tabletop but you're not giving a whole lot of reasons why it can't be done. After all, other systems manage balance while having more realistic rules and do so using a d6 based system. Thus making the game more intuitive isn't impossible or even hard to do. I'd even argue that 28mm is playing on too small a table as is and either tables should increase to 12' by 8' or the scale should change to give more realistic ranges and movement rates.

While FoW is the first that comes to mind I bet you more games than not have rules that are more realistic and balanced than GW's.

Yes, it's impossible because nothing in this game is "real" at all. So adding realism to a game that is based off of none is...well, absurd. "Other Systems" aren't this one. Other systems have entirely different rule sets to balance out this one change you've mentioned.

Also not to mention that this would add a HUGE benefit for only a select few armies and be a huge detriment to the rest.

I also do not doubt your claim that other games have more balanced rules. Especially considering that it is only just recently that GW is finally getting around to updating 6+ year old codices.

Funny you speak about it not being real, yet fail to notice that even the fluff disagrees strongly with what we see on the table top. We get battle scenes of tanks firing on the move while traveling at some speed. While some of the crazier parts of the fluff like the acts of the Primarchs and some of the more exaggerated tales about the space marines would still need to remain as tales, I see now reason why simple things like movement differences for different infantry and tanks moving and shooting properly couldn't be added and frankly all you've said on the issue is that it can't happen. For all your can't you can't seem to give any well thought out reasons why it isn't possible.

Right now, tanks have a choice when it comes to take their turn


OPTION 1: Stay Still

GOOD: shoot all your guns, including ordinance barrage.
BAD: Auto hit in close combat, did not move.


OPTION 2: Move 6"

GOOD: can still fire 1 weapon, hit on a 4+ in combat, gained some maneuverability
BAD: Con only fire 1 gun, 4+ in combat is not great, only moved at infantry speed


OPTION 3: Move 12"

GOOD: Not on a 6+ in combat, Moved faster than infantry
BAD: Can not fire any guns



Right now, you have a tactical choice when it comes to your tanks. Sometimes it is best to stay still, sometimes better not too.

By letting tanks fire all of their guns all of the time, every tank will always move 7+ inches a turn. There is no reason not to do anything else. EVEN IF this is more "realistic", it makes for a less interesting GAME! The point of the game is the present the player with choices and let the player figure out which one is the right choice in different situations.


If you make something "always" the right choice there is no point to the game. There is nothing for the player to do other than to follow a list of instructions rather than make choices.

Look no further than Tic-Tac-Toe for an example of this. The game is solved, and if both players play correctly there is only one outcome, a draw.

Norade wrote:

Funny you speak about it not being real, yet fail to notice that even the fluff disagrees strongly with what we see on the table top. We get battle scenes of tanks firing on the move while traveling at some speed. While some of the crazier parts of the fluff like the acts of the Primarchs and some of the more exaggerated tales about the space marines would still need to remain as tales, I see now reason why simple things like movement differences for different infantry and tanks moving and shooting properly couldn't be added and frankly all you've said on the issue is that it can't happen. For all your can't you can't seem to give any well thought out reasons why it isn't possible.

Yes, well the fluff also has multi-wound models dying in one hit in CC to a standard power sword. Monoliths getting destroyed by a single melta bomb. The nightbringer afraid of a melta bomb.

I never said it wasn't possible, I'm saying it is not probable or cohesive to game balance for this rule set.

Im guessing because of the current game mechanics, if tanks can do that, then they can back paddle and fire at melee units all day, ( and GW dont want to make jumppackless melee units redundant )

Is your book full of typos? Because in my rulebook, tanks can move and shoot.

DarknessEternal wrote:Is your book full of typos? Because in my rulebook, tanks can move and shoot.

What we are talking about here is why would you have say an ork battle wagon bristling with shootas, rokkits, and cannons when you could only fire one if that thing moved even an inch

But I still stand that its all about balance

Well, you could fire all the passengers' weapons, couldn't you?

combat speed (or slower) only I believe, and only the amount of fire points it has (open topped excluded). And heavy weapons can't fire if the vehicle moved at all.

No, surely not... In the vehicles section of the rules, it clearly states that normal movement rules for heavy & rapid fire weapons don't apply. All vehicles are effectively relentless, except for their different "speed" things restrictions.

Sam__theRelentless wrote:No, surely not... In the vehicles section of the rules, it clearly states that normal movement rules for heavy & rapid fire weapons don't apply. All vehicles are effectively relentless, except for their different "speed" things restrictions.

Yes, the VEHICLE is "relentless". The units inside are NOT (unless they actually are, like terminators). But you asked about units inside the vehicle, not the vehicle itself. Check your post up above.

Okay, right. In that case, I firmly agree with svendrex: regardless of the fluff (which is just to make the game background interesting), this is the kind of rule that makes the game tactically cool.

It's a bit like in chess: Surely the rook (or "castle" in Poland) shouldn't be able to move at all? But otherwise the game just wouldn't run, in the same sense that 40k would run too much if tanks could shoot full power and move. Especially in the mech-based armies, whereby Tyranids and Orks would suddenly find themselves dead.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kenshin620 wrote:

DarknessEternal wrote:Is your book full of typos? Because in my rulebook, tanks can move and shoot.

What we are talking about here is why would you have say an ork battle wagon bristling with shootas, rokkits, and cannons when you could only fire one if that thing moved even an inch

But I still stand that its all about balance

Because they are busy holding on while the Trukk careens across the battlefield at high speeds (and going in circles). Or even just preparing to hold on...

All the people who seem to think this would only help some armies are looking at this wrong. In the current rules it would effect balance, but given that fact that many other more balanced systems can allow vehicles to move and shoot properly means that any competent rules would allow for increased fluff to table top representation and likely create a tighter rules system.

Norade wrote:All the people who seem to think this would only help some armies are looking at this wrong. In the current rules it would effect balance, but given that fact that many other more balanced systems can allow vehicles to move and shoot properly means that any competent rules would allow for increased fluff to table top representation and likely create a tighter rules system.

If it's so easy to do, then why don't you make a suggestion as to more balanced rules regarding tanks, their movement, and their shooting?

Furthermore, why can an assault rifle only fire twice in a round?! Or a Gatling gun only fire 4 times? Why can these weapons only fire about 30 meters? Why can a fence or hedge stop missiles, heavy-caliber bullets, lasers, and railgun slugs? The answer to all of these is the same: 40K is not a realistic game system.

Shrike325 wrote:

Norade wrote:All the people who seem to think this would only help some armies are looking at this wrong. In the current rules it would effect balance, but given that fact that many other more balanced systems can allow vehicles to move and shoot properly means that any competent rules would allow for increased fluff to table top representation and likely create a tighter rules system.

If it's so easy to do, then why don't you make a suggestion as to more balanced rules regarding tanks, their movement, and their shooting?

Furthermore, why can an assault rifle only fire twice in a round?! Or a Gatling gun only fire 4 times? Why can these weapons only fire about 30 meters? Why can a fence or hedge stop missiles, heavy-caliber bullets, lasers, and railgun slugs? The answer to all of these is the same: 40K is not a realistic game system.

Doing so would require a total rules rewrite and unfortunately I don't get paid to write rules and I doubt I would make a ton of money trying to start a new game system especially if I were to build around GW's IP. I can however point you to Warmachine/Hordes, and FoW which are rules systems that are better balanced than 40k. I'm sure i can find many more that are better written and don't have forces 6 years out of date and that don't charge you $80 a model.

I'm with the whole "it will make certain armies over powered" Mech Guard is the first that comes to mind especially if it is an Emperors Fist tank Battalion (12 or so LRBT all with sponsons being able to fire EVERYTHING per turn........ no ) while making armies such as Tyranids severely fubard.

Tazz Azrael wrote:I'm with the whole "it will make certain armies over powered" Mech Guard is the first that comes to mind especially if it is an Emperors Fist tank Battalion (12 or so LRBT all with sponsons being able to fire EVERYTHING per turn........ no ) while making armies such as Tyranids severely fubard.

Missing the fact that other armies would also see changes and the fact that I've said it would require a major rewrite to work. Are people just ignorant and not reading the entire thread before posting?

By letting tanks fire all of their guns all of the time, every tank will always move 7+ inches a turn. There is no reason not to do anything else. EVEN IF this is more "realistic", it makes for a less interesting GAME! The point of the game is the present the player with choices and let the player figure out which one is the right choice in different situations.


If you make something "always" the right choice there is no point to the game. There is nothing for the player to do other than to follow a list of instructions rather than make choices.

Like you said, it would require most if not all of the rules to be rewritten. and like svendrex said, there would be no reason not to. You'll have to either buff up the armor and toughness of other models or require the game to have tougher and more cover. In doing this, you'll be increasing the advantage melee units have over ranged units. The list of changes would go on and on. Personally, I think the way tanks play right now are perfectly balanced. Its the cover and armor saves i have a problem with. If you take cover behind a wall, does your armor all of a sudden disappear?

LoneGamer wrote:Tau can do it - vehicle multi-trackers are explicitly described as advanced sensor suites for weapons tracking on the move.

Something which the Imperial Guard also has, as described in the Gaunt's Ghosts novels?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LumenPraebeo wrote:If you take cover behind a wall, does your armor all of a sudden disappear?

I swear, every time I Hear this argument, it makes me want to punch someone in the face.