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 ca
Secretive Dark Angels Veteran




Vancouver, BC

SemperMortis wrote:
Except you are wrong. The Humvee was absolutely designed to be a "Battle Taxi" and a patrol vehicle as well as a convoy escort, scout vehicle etc etc, it was literally purpose designed/built to be a jack of all trades vehicle.

My reading has always said that it was always supposed to stick to rear line roles and ended up pressed into frontline service due to a lack of suitable vehicles to conduct patrols with. Regardless of the intent, the Hummer has always sucked at doing anything under fire.

And the reason the US changed over to the MRAP was because Humvees didn't stand up well to the Taliban and Iraqi's #1 weapon system...IEDs.

Yeah, I'm aware that this is what finally pushed things over the edge, but it's my understanding that nobody ever really liked the Hummer in any situation where its being shot at mainly because it wasn't designed to be shot it.

Utility wise a humvee is significantly faster and more maneuverable than an MRAP and has the same armaments, the biggest difference is that the MRAP has significantly thicker armor. Ive watched an MRAP take a 82mm recoil less rifle like it was nothing, likewise ive done BDAs on MRAPs that drove over 20-30lbs of HME and drove off afterwards, where as against a humvee, it would have killed everyone on board.

Hopefully the JLTV can provide that extra protection without being a pig to drive.
   
Made in ca
Legendary Master of the Chapter





Karol wrote:
BrianDavion 798946 11154947 wrote:

then they need to give those factions better anti-tank.

And how do they do that when any gear update is linked to obligatory model updates which are planned years in advance? They are never going to tell this or that army players something in the line of , sorry guys we planed the updated for your army for 2024 hang on till then, preferably by buying an army with updated models and rules.


yeah obviously some armies have issues and would suffer a bit but end of the day, every army NEEDS anti-tank. and there needs to be a better divide between "anti-heavy infantry" and "anti-tank"
I don't mind if there's a bit of overlap vs light APCs and the like, but the weapon you use to kill a LAND RAIDER, should NOT be the ideal weapon to kill a pack of Ork Nobs with

Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two 
   
Made in de
Prescient Cryptek of Eternity






Germany

All tanks/armoured vehicles should have a 2+ sv. Any AP0 weapon should have a hard time getting through its armor. Light vehicles keep their 3+ sv. Increase LCs to AP-4, and meltas to -5. Those are dedicated anti armour guns, and they should be a real threat to tanks.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/06/22 05:13:56


 
   
Made in au
Regular Dakkanaut





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+


  • The Chimera and Rhino being the same is fine. The Wave Serpent is fine at T7 as well but the wounds are certainly odd. Predator should have been T8 with at least 12 - 13 wounds. Leman Russ at least T9 with 12 - 13 wounds. Land Raider just needs to move to T9 as well.


    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?


    I would disagree. Previously AV 14 vehicles should all be T9. The only machines or monsters that should ever approach T10 are the biggest titans that you'll probably never see.
       
    Made in au
    Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






    Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

    Jarms48 wrote:
    The Chimera and Rhino being the same is fine.
    Why? They're not the same. Chimeras are more armoured on the front. They're IFVs rather than APCs. It's not "fine" in the slightest.

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

     
       
    Made in it
    Gargantuan Gargant




    Italy

     p5freak wrote:
    All tanks/armoured vehicles should have a 2+ sv. Any AP0 weapon should have a hard time getting through its armor. Light vehicles keep their 3+ sv. Increase LCs to AP-4, and meltas to -5. Those are dedicated anti armour guns, and they should be a real threat to tanks.


    Many posters here believe that tanks' problems are related to low and mid strength weapon, but it's false. They're suffering from weapons that kill them with just 2-3 shots that bypass saves, AKA dedicated anti tank weapons. Buffing the save doesn't change anything, especially if also AP on anti tank weapons get a buff.

    Double vehicles/monsters wounds instead. Now anti tank weapons would still do serious damage but tanks could actually "tank" something .

    Ask yourself: how many meltas/lascannons/lances/rockets/other anti-tank hits that bypass saves should be enough to wreck a vehicle? I'd like 3-5 for something like a trukk or a rhino, and up to 6-7 for something like Land raiders or Gork/morkanauts. Since those weapons deal 3+ damage each and have high AP (not to mention that can be enhanced in many ways) there's really no better solution other than increasing the vehicels/monsters number of wounds and/or adding rules to reduce the damage.

    The single shot that can instant kill a vehicle, even a light one, was something acceptable in older editions when a TAC list had a third of the firepower that everyone has now.


     
       
    Made in gb
    Longtime Dakkanaut




     Blackie wrote:
    Many posters here believe that tanks' problems are related to low and mid strength weapon, but it's false. They're suffering from weapons that kill them with just 2-3 shots that bypass saves, AKA dedicated anti tank weapons. Buffing the save doesn't change anything, especially if also AP on anti tank weapons get a buff.


    Yeah. I think there are two issues. Immersion versus gameyness. (I.E. Tanks should be immune to small arms but be completely destroyed by say melta, versus small arms should get a 10-15% return, but melta should get 40-50% return (not 100%+ like now). There isn't much that can resolve this.

    Then you have this issue of "chip damage is a problem" and "no it isn't".
    In my experience chip damage is rarely a problem unless you end up in a situation where someone is shooting 500+ points of stuff at your tank. In which case.. yeah, odds are they are going to do some wounds. But its still not a problem unless something has gone horribly wrong so the rest of your army is dead. People shooting things they are unlikely to do much damage to is generally a good thing for you.

    For example, as I see it on average you'd need 15 heavy bolters at BS3+ to kill a Rhino or Chimera (11-12 for Marines on first turn with the extra pip of AP). With some buffs it goes down further. Now I don't know the cheapest possible platform you could spam HBs on - but I'm suspect you could get it at a cheap enough price in 9th where this was materially a problem.

    I mean I think 5 Devs with 4 HBs and a Cherub on the first turn get a 30% return on a Rhino (assuming they don't need to move, no cover etc) - doing 4.9~ wounds (lets say 5). The idea you can't play your rhino's because you might run into someone running such a unit (its never happened to me) is hard to treat seriously.

    By contrast an MM attack bike gets something like a 42% return outside melta range, rising to a 65% return in melta range. There is probably a bigger curve on this though - as sometimes you'll roll 1s for damage and sometimes you'll roll 6s. But still, averages are averages. So yes, an MM attack bike in 12" does double the damage 5 Devs with 4 HBs and a Cherub do for their points.

    And note this is the Devs in turn 1 with a Cherub. In turn 2 (so no AP buff) without a cherub they fall to a miserable 17% return.

    Where I think the problem partly lies is in some vehicles are just overcosted. A Predator for example has one more wound than a Rhino, but is otherwise the same. So if you bling it out with guns to the point where it costs twice as much as a Rhino, you are effectively doubling those returns. So MM attack bikes are getting over 100% returns - and even the HB Devs are doing more than 50% (on the first turn anyway). But the problem here is that the Predator is just *bad* rather than chip damage. Its so fragile for its points almost any gun pointed at it becomes efficient.
       
    Made in de
    Prescient Cryptek of Eternity






    Germany

     Blackie wrote:

    Many posters here believe that tanks' problems are related to low and mid strength weapon, but it's false. They're suffering from weapons that kill them with just 2-3 shots that bypass saves, AKA dedicated anti tank weapons. Buffing the save doesn't change anything, especially if also AP on anti tank weapons get a buff.

    Double vehicles/monsters wounds instead. Now anti tank weapons would still do serious damage but tanks could actually "tank" something .


    Thats how its should be. Anti armour guns should kill a regular tank in 1-3 shots, thats fine. Really big tanks like a LR should be able to withstand 1 or 2 more shots. Tanks should easily withstand 50 AP0 shots/melee attacks without suffering major damage, 1-2 damage is ok, because those guns have no armour penetration.

    This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/22 09:13:19


     
       
    Made in gb
    Ship's Officer





    Bristol (UK)

    Part of the melta problem is the range is no longer the issue it used to be.
    In prior editions meltas were pretty ineffective over half range, but absolutely lethal within half range.
    Now, there's not nearly as big of a lethality drop.
    Additionally, the mobility of these weapons has increased dramatically. 12" short range for a multi-melta used to be a big problem as infantry couldn't move and fire them, now you don't lose too much for running and gunning, if the target is in cover you don't lose anything at all!
    Plus the new missions encourage both players to contest the centre of the board (no bad thing in isolation), meaning that the ability to reach from one table side to the other isn't that important anymore so again you see the melta's big downside just not being that important.
    I think melta would be more thematic if you reduced it's range by say ~25-33%
       
    Made in au
    Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






    Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

     Blackie wrote:
    Many posters here believe that tanks' problems are related to low and mid strength weapon, but it's false.
    If it were false, why would we be saying tanks/monsters are too fragile?

    And as many of us have been saying for months, it's mid-strength weapons. Don't bring low strength weapons into this to make it sound like we're complaining about lasguns and shootas taking out titans.

    It's the heavy bolters and gauss cannons of the world. Not the bolt pistols and shuirken catapults.

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

     
       
    Made in it
    Gargantuan Gargant




    Italy

     p5freak wrote:
     Blackie wrote:

    Many posters here believe that tanks' problems are related to low and mid strength weapon, but it's false. They're suffering from weapons that kill them with just 2-3 shots that bypass saves, AKA dedicated anti tank weapons. Buffing the save doesn't change anything, especially if also AP on anti tank weapons get a buff.

    Double vehicles/monsters wounds instead. Now anti tank weapons would still do serious damage but tanks could actually "tank" something .


    Thats how its should be. Anti armour guns should kill a regular tank in 1-3 shots, thats fine. Really big tanks like a LR should be able to withstand 1 or 2 more shots. Tanks should easily withstand 50 AP0 shots/melee attacks without suffering major damage, 1-2 damage is ok, because those guns have no armour penetration.


    So you actually have no problems with the current state of tanks. Because in practise they can already tank a lot of low S shots, even mid S ones.

    Anti armour guns killing tanks in 1-3 shots are not fine if an average standard list can take 20+ of them with tools to enhance them. In 3rd edition anti tank weapons could instant kill a tank but a TAC list had something like 7-10 shots from melta, plasma, missiles, lascannons, etc... with no stratagems, re-rolls or other tricks to buff them and penalties for shooters (fire arcs, cannot move and shoot, etc...). If we are ok with the current rate of fire of such weapons and all the buffs they can get (I'm not) then killing tanks with 1-3 shots is wrong. Unless we make tanks super cheap, which is also wrong.


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
     H.B.M.C. wrote:
     Blackie wrote:
    Many posters here believe that tanks' problems are related to low and mid strength weapon, but it's false.
    If it were false, why would we be saying tanks/monsters are too fragile?

    And as many of us have been saying for months, it's mid-strength weapons. Don't bring low strength weapons into this to make it sound like we're complaining about lasguns and shootas taking out titans.

    It's the heavy bolters and gauss cannons of the world. Not the bolt pistols and shuirken catapults.


    Because they have problems with immersion, they don't like the idea of such weapons damaging tanks. And they also may believe that everyone can spam mid S weapons and kill tanks with those weapons reliably; combos with heavy bolters and similar weapons are exceptions, not the rule. Tanks ARE fragile, as it may take just a couple of lucky anti tank shots to kill or to cripple most of them.

    Drukhari don't kill tanks with enhanced poison shots or dis cannons, they kill them with lots of S8+ AP-4 multi damage weapons and mortal wounds sources. Same with orks, etc...

    This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/06/22 11:15:24



     
       
    Made in de
    Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






     Unit1126PLL wrote:
     Jidmah wrote:
    How do you even come to the conclusion that almost 400 points of bolters dealing two damage to a T7 vehicle is a problem? Especially when those marine could easily wreck that chimera in previous editions.


    I just used it as an example of "weapon stats not determining damage as much as extra super-special buffs".


    If that was your intent, you have proven yourself wrong. Out of the two most powerful ones you used, one buff does not exist, and one is rarely, if ever given because it's one-per-army buff and extremely expensive.
    The only two you actually will find on "small arms", if you want to call bolters that, are re-roll ones to hit OR to wound (rarely both) and a situational -1AP from doctrines.

    So even in the rare situation that both a captain and a sergeant are near your tactical squad during turn 2 or 3, you are looking at ~1.5 damage to a chimera, or 0.76 damage to a LRBT or 0.5 damage to a landraider. For intercessors (AP-2) the numbers are 2.01/1.01/0.76.

    Plus, there's a whole separate (and off-topic) discussion about whether or not 400 points of unit should automagically beat 75 points. One could make quite a convincing case that 400 points of the wrong weapon should do exactly nothing to 75 points of target.

    What argument? "Muh immersion"? Which is just stating that you don't like it and that people are not allowed to tell you otherwise?
    We had all of 7th to show us that unit which are immune to other units are not a good thing.

    weapon-to-target paring is a really fun and engaging part of other wargames.

    Only if you assume that shooting 400 points at 75 vehicles isn't already is a terribly bad decision in 9th edition. You simply cannot afford to throw away a fifth of your army's offensive output (or more, since the chapter master can be a big multiplier). Their proficiency is killing infantry models, and you are always better off doing exactly that.
    In 9th applying the right weapon to the right target is one of the most important aspects of the game. If my opponent is shooting bolters at vehicles and melta at infantry, my tanks aren't having any problems at all.
    You are trying to fix a part of the system that isn't broken.

    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 ca
    Deranged Necron Destroyer






     p5freak wrote:
     Blackie wrote:

    Many posters here believe that tanks' problems are related to low and mid strength weapon, but it's false. They're suffering from weapons that kill them with just 2-3 shots that bypass saves, AKA dedicated anti tank weapons. Buffing the save doesn't change anything, especially if also AP on anti tank weapons get a buff.

    Double vehicles/monsters wounds instead. Now anti tank weapons would still do serious damage but tanks could actually "tank" something .


    Thats how its should be. Anti armour guns should kill a regular tank in 1-3 shots, thats fine. Really big tanks like a LR should be able to withstand 1 or 2 more shots. Tanks should easily withstand 50 AP0 shots/melee attacks without suffering major damage, 1-2 damage is ok, because those guns have no armour penetration.


    Ok, so we double all vehicle wounds, awesome!
    Do you see point/PL changes as well, or double wounds at the same costs?

    I'm an old school Necron player. To me, the Monolith is iconic. A floating brick of solid living metal and energy. The original cost 235 points AV14 all around, and even had a rule that denied the extra armour penetration from meltas and such.

    The current one is 360pnts, 24 wounds, T8, 2+, no special stuff aside from regaining 5 wounds over the course of a game (I believe you can get it to 5 per turn with the right support and hit rolls, but that means tossing another 200+ points of support).

    Jumping it to 48 wounds would be Absolutely amazing. It would feel like the solid brick of Gauss doom it used to be.

    Girl Gamers are the best! 
       
    Made in de
    Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






     H.B.M.C. wrote:
    Don't bring low strength weapons into this to make it sound like we're complaining about lasguns and shootas taking out titans.

    It's the heavy bolters and gauss cannons of the world. Not the bolt pistols and shuirken catapults.


    Have you read this thread? It feels like half of it is about how to prevent bolters and lasguns from wounding vehicles.

    Earth is not flat
    Vaccines work
    We've been to the moon
    Climate change is real
    Chemtrails aren't a thing
    Evolution is a fact
    Orks are not a melee army
    Stand up for science!
     
       
    Made in us
    Longtime Dakkanaut




     H.B.M.C. wrote:
     Blackie wrote:
    Many posters here believe that tanks' problems are related to low and mid strength weapon, but it's false.
    If it were false, why would we be saying tanks/monsters are too fragile?

    And as many of us have been saying for months, it's mid-strength weapons. Don't bring low strength weapons into this to make it sound like we're complaining about lasguns and shootas taking out titans.

    It's the heavy bolters and gauss cannons of the world. Not the bolt pistols and shuirken catapults.


    except people here have been complaining about lasguns plinking off wounds. But even heavy bolters aren't an issue.

    Against a T6+ vehicle with a 3+ save it takes 9 shots at BS3+ to inflict 2dmg, 9 shots, 6 hits, 2 wounds 1 goes through. So in order to kill a 10 Wound vehicle you need 90 shots. A Heavy bolter is 10pts on a lot of models, that means in just weapons upgrades its 300pts to kill 1 vehicle, add in the model cost, you are talking north of 500pts minimum. So again, Heavy bolters aren't what is killing vehicles right now. They are just significantly more effective than they were before, but still not ideal for shooting vehicles, at best its good to plink off a few here and there.

     Xenomancers wrote:
    It is utterly idiotic...like 8.5 ironhands idiotic to include this rule. I can assure you within 1 month it will be nerfed too...to only be DA characters...which is fine for a free rule that no other marines get...

    Just cant stand these snow flake marines anymore.
     
       
    Made in us
    Hurr! Ogryn Bone 'Ead!






    Tyran wrote:
     kurhanik wrote:

    That is why most people advocating for increasing Toughness cap and rejiggering Strength scores are *also* saying more wounds and saves are needed. An autocannon and its equivalents still wounds up to T13 on a 5+, meaning it is still a viable option for dealing chip damage against things that are not mainline battletanks without being too strong, while overcharged plasma would be doing the same up to T15.

    Bump up Toughness on Vehicles and Monsters, throw in more wounds to give them some tankiness, and then buff full anti-tank to match it. If a Lascannon or its Xenos equivalent is S18 or the like, who cares? It was already wounding all but the tankiest of infantry on a 2+, same with S8. T5 infantry would suffer from it, but I dunno, if someone is firing their anti-tank at your infantry instead of your tanks, that already sounds like a win, especially since except for a few outliers, most anti tank weapons have limited shots.

    Playing with the Toughness and Strength caps also creates more design space as right now a light vehicle is T6, and a heavy tank is T8. Making the lightest vehicles/monsters T10 and working up from there creates a more varied field of possibilities, and also allows for T6-9 to represent other things besides vehicles.

    When most people say bump toughness, they refer to relatively small increases like tanks being T8, T9 heavy tanks and super heavy T10.

    They are not advocating for making tanks T15, because sure you create a design space, that then you fill with what making Space Marines T7 and oh look the heavy bolter is now S9 and is still wounding tanks on a 5+ and the multi melta is S16 or something like that and we got nowhere.


    I'd say your full of garbage there on T7 Marines and S9 Heavy Bolters, but this is GW we are talking about, so you really can't take anything for granted...

    To me personally I'd say T6-9 could then go to the most heavy and resilient infantry in the game, as well as things like the new Sister's Warsuits or the Primaris Marine open faced walker thing whose name I cannot for the life of me remember. Just for an example T6 Meganobz could be a thing - sure a dedicated anti tank round to the face will still paste them, but that isn't too much different from how it is now.

    The Red Hobbit wrote:I think he was using S18 as a hyperbole and not actually advocating for S18 lascannons.

    If I understood his point correctly it doesn't really matter if a lascannon jumps to S18 and nothing else does, it was wounding nearly every infantry on 2+ before and it will afterwards as well.

    I agree that raising S solely on antitank and raising T solely on Tanks would be an improvement. I also agree some additional wounds for durability would go a long way.



    Yes and no, I was saying that bumping the Toughness cap would obviously require bumping the Strength on weapons, and since I was noting vehicles residing in the T10-20 range, S18 would make sense for it. But you are correct, my big point there was that it really doesn't matter what the S is on a Lascannon is, it was already wounding all but the most resilient of infantry tier models on a 2+, so if its S10, S12, S18 or S20 it means little outside of the scope of T5 infantry. Same with S8 weapons like Melta or their equivalents - it already is wounding most infantry on a 2+ - the only things it doesn't do it on are T5 infantry.




    On the Medium Strength weapon topic, really the chip damage is only an issue when said platforms are cheaper or more efficient than full blown anti tank. How this stands varies wildly depending on how the pendulum swings. Right now thanks to all the buffs to anti tank weapons in many codices, it seems to favor anti tank. Obviously none of my above ideas will ever get implemented into the game, but simply increasing the Wounds on most vehicles and monsters by 25-50% will do wonders for their longevity. Throw in more 2+ saves and they might see more use.
       
    Made in gb
    Ship's Officer





    Bristol (UK)

    I'd rather just go back to the old to-wound chart.
    That'd create the effect you're trying to create by increasing toughness anyways.
    It'd also prevent small arms dealing damage to tanks.

    I know small arms aren't a bit threat gameplay wise.
    But firstly, it does feel gakky and silly to me when a lasgun inflicts appreciable damage to a tank.
    Secondly, I think it's just a waste of time to roll that attack. When it takes 72 lasguns or whatever to deal a wound to a tank, can't we just round that down to zero and say don't bother rolling?
    I know I can just choose not to, but half the time it's not up to me it's up to my opponent.
       
    Made in us
    Longtime Dakkanaut




     kirotheavenger wrote:
    I'd rather just go back to the old to-wound chart.
    That'd create the effect you're trying to create by increasing toughness anyways.
    It'd also prevent small arms dealing damage to tanks.

    I know small arms aren't a bit threat gameplay wise.
    But firstly, it does feel gakky and silly to me when a lasgun inflicts appreciable damage to a tank.
    Secondly, I think it's just a waste of time to roll that attack. When it takes 72 lasguns or whatever to deal a wound to a tank, can't we just round that down to zero and say don't bother rolling?
    I know I can just choose not to, but half the time it's not up to me it's up to my opponent.


    And congrats you haven't fixed any of the real problems currently decimating Vehicles and tanks in particular. Those Melta guns and lascannons are still wounding on 3-4s and are still gutting the vehicles in 1 shooting phase. The real solution is to drastically increase # of wounds on vehicles so that the Eradicators 2 S8 D6+4 shots don't just kill a tank in 1 turn.

     Xenomancers wrote:
    It is utterly idiotic...like 8.5 ironhands idiotic to include this rule. I can assure you within 1 month it will be nerfed too...to only be DA characters...which is fine for a free rule that no other marines get...

    Just cant stand these snow flake marines anymore.
     
       
    Made in us
    Daemonic Dreadnought




    The dark hollows of Kentucky

     p5freak wrote:
    Spoiler:
     Blackie wrote:

    Many posters here believe that tanks' problems are related to low and mid strength weapon, but it's false. They're suffering from weapons that kill them with just 2-3 shots that bypass saves, AKA dedicated anti tank weapons. Buffing the save doesn't change anything, especially if also AP on anti tank weapons get a buff.

    Double vehicles/monsters wounds instead. Now anti tank weapons would still do serious damage but tanks could actually "tank" something .


    Thats how its should be. Anti armour guns should kill a regular tank in 1-3 shots, thats fine. Really big tanks like a LR should be able to withstand 1 or 2 more shots. Tanks should easily withstand 50 AP0 shots/melee attacks without suffering major damage, 1-2 damage is ok, because those guns have no armour penetration.

    Ok, let's say you're right, a dedicated AT weapon should be able to kill a typical tank in 1-3 unsaved wounds. Here's my question: just how much should such a weapon cost? How efficient should any weapon be against it's ideal target?

    This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/06/22 14:20:09


     
       
    Made in us
    Tunneling Trygon




    Mexico

     kurhanik wrote:

    I'd say your full of garbage there on T7 Marines and S9 Heavy Bolters, but this is GW we are talking about, so you really can't take anything for granted...

    To me personally I'd say T6-9 could then go to the most heavy and resilient infantry in the game, as well as things like the new Sister's Warsuits or the Primaris Marine open faced walker thing whose name I cannot for the life of me remember. Just for an example T6 Meganobz could be a thing - sure a dedicated anti tank round to the face will still paste them, but that isn't too much different from how it is now.


    I mean, Marines are supposed to be in the upper ends of infantry toughness, being super human warriors on super power armor and all that, only surpassed by the even more super-human and more super armored Custodes and special super variants of the Marine template (terminators, plague marines, rubrics, etc.) and some xenos super heavy infantry (Meganobs, Tyrant Guard, Wraithguard, battlesuits, etc)

    If you are going to leave T6 to 10 open for heavy infantry, Marines should be somewhere there.

    This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/22 14:23:10


     
       
    Made in us
    Omnipotent Necron Overlord






     Tyran wrote:
     kurhanik wrote:

    I'd say your full of garbage there on T7 Marines and S9 Heavy Bolters, but this is GW we are talking about, so you really can't take anything for granted...

    To me personally I'd say T6-9 could then go to the most heavy and resilient infantry in the game, as well as things like the new Sister's Warsuits or the Primaris Marine open faced walker thing whose name I cannot for the life of me remember. Just for an example T6 Meganobz could be a thing - sure a dedicated anti tank round to the face will still paste them, but that isn't too much different from how it is now.


    I mean, Marines are supposed to be in the upper ends of infantry toughness, being super human warriors on super power armor and all that, only surpassed by the even more super-human and more super armored Custodes and special super variants of the Marine template (terminators, plague marines, rubrics, etc.) and some xenos super heavy infantry (Meganobs, Tyrant Guard, Wraithguard, battlesuits, etc)

    If you are going to leave T6 to 10 open for heavy infantry, Marines should be somewhere there.

    No - orks should obviously have more toughness than marines. Marines are puny.

    If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
    - Fox Mulder 
       
    Made in us
    Longtime Dakkanaut




     Gadzilla666 wrote:
     p5freak wrote:
    Spoiler:
     Blackie wrote:

    Many posters here believe that tanks' problems are related to low and mid strength weapon, but it's false. They're suffering from weapons that kill them with just 2-3 shots that bypass saves, AKA dedicated anti tank weapons. Buffing the save doesn't change anything, especially if also AP on anti tank weapons get a buff.

    Double vehicles/monsters wounds instead. Now anti tank weapons would still do serious damage but tanks could actually "tank" something .


    Thats how its should be. Anti armour guns should kill a regular tank in 1-3 shots, thats fine. Really big tanks like a LR should be able to withstand 1 or 2 more shots. Tanks should easily withstand 50 AP0 shots/melee attacks without suffering major damage, 1-2 damage is ok, because those guns have no armour penetration.

    Ok, let's say you're right, a dedicated AT weapon should be able to kill a typical tank in 1-3 unsaved wounds. Here's my question: just how much should such a weapon cost? How efficient should any weapon be against it's ideal target?


    Well, since a Tank is anywhere from 130-180pts, and it only takes 1-3 unsaved wounds to kill the tank, the anti-tank weapon should cost about 60pts Without any buffs except weapon upgrades (heavy and MM) a unit of 3 eradicators is able to inflict about 12dmg to a T8 vehicle with a 3+ save. If you get them into Half range it goes up to 17. Against a T7 vehicle its 16 and 23. So 1-3 shots of eradicators is able to utterly destroy a tank in 1 shooting phase and is going to bracket a Knight titan in 1 shooting phase. They should probably cost more than the tank, but at the moment, those 3 eradicators are....155pts


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
     Xenomancers wrote:

    No - orks should obviously have more toughness than marines. Marines are puny.


    You are correct. A godlike race of sentient beings capable of fighting star gods and being so immensely powerful and advanced that the Eldar are literally their idiot children in comparison would absolutely have made their "warrior" race more advanced than simple Humans glad we can agree.

    This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/22 14:29:42


     Xenomancers wrote:
    It is utterly idiotic...like 8.5 ironhands idiotic to include this rule. I can assure you within 1 month it will be nerfed too...to only be DA characters...which is fine for a free rule that no other marines get...

    Just cant stand these snow flake marines anymore.
     
       
    Made in gb
    Ship's Officer





    Bristol (UK)

    SemperMortis wrote:
     kirotheavenger wrote:
    I'd rather just go back to the old to-wound chart.
    That'd create the effect you're trying to create by increasing toughness anyways.
    It'd also prevent small arms dealing damage to tanks.

    I know small arms aren't a bit threat gameplay wise.
    But firstly, it does feel gakky and silly to me when a lasgun inflicts appreciable damage to a tank.
    Secondly, I think it's just a waste of time to roll that attack. When it takes 72 lasguns or whatever to deal a wound to a tank, can't we just round that down to zero and say don't bother rolling?
    I know I can just choose not to, but half the time it's not up to me it's up to my opponent.


    And congrats you haven't fixed any of the real problems currently decimating Vehicles and tanks in particular. Those Melta guns and lascannons are still wounding on 3-4s and are still gutting the vehicles in 1 shooting phase. The real solution is to drastically increase # of wounds on vehicles so that the Eradicators 2 S8 D6+4 shots don't just kill a tank in 1 turn.

    Good job I didn't advertise it as a the single solution to fix everything then, right?

    You can also increase vehicle wounds, and/or increase the cost of AT weapons.
       
    Made in us
    Daemonic Dreadnought




    The dark hollows of Kentucky

    SemperMortis wrote:
     Gadzilla666 wrote:
     p5freak wrote:
    Spoiler:
     Blackie wrote:

    Many posters here believe that tanks' problems are related to low and mid strength weapon, but it's false. They're suffering from weapons that kill them with just 2-3 shots that bypass saves, AKA dedicated anti tank weapons. Buffing the save doesn't change anything, especially if also AP on anti tank weapons get a buff.

    Double vehicles/monsters wounds instead. Now anti tank weapons would still do serious damage but tanks could actually "tank" something .


    Thats how its should be. Anti armour guns should kill a regular tank in 1-3 shots, thats fine. Really big tanks like a LR should be able to withstand 1 or 2 more shots. Tanks should easily withstand 50 AP0 shots/melee attacks without suffering major damage, 1-2 damage is ok, because those guns have no armour penetration.

    Ok, let's say you're right, a dedicated AT weapon should be able to kill a typical tank in 1-3 unsaved wounds. Here's my question: just how much should such a weapon cost? How efficient should any weapon be against it's ideal target?


    Well, since a Tank is anywhere from 130-180pts, and it only takes 1-3 unsaved wounds to kill the tank, the anti-tank weapon should cost about 60pts Without any buffs except weapon upgrades (heavy and MM) a unit of 3 eradicators is able to inflict about 12dmg to a T8 vehicle with a 3+ save. If you get them into Half range it goes up to 17. Against a T7 vehicle its 16 and 23. So 1-3 shots of eradicators is able to utterly destroy a tank in 1 shooting phase and is going to bracket a Knight titan in 1 shooting phase. They should probably cost more than the tank, but at the moment, those 3 eradicators are....155pts

    Which is my point. The current crop of new and improved AT weapons do what AT weapons should do: devastate tanks. But they don't pay the appropriate price for that ability. No shooting unit should be able to make back it's points in a single round of unbuffed shooting. You shouldn't be getting a 100% return from shooting at 24 away without some form of buff. Tanks are bad right now because weapons like multi-meltas are just too damned cheap.
       
    Made in us
    Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord





    In My Lab

    Also, it should be noted that Eradicators aren't BAD at anti-infantry duty. Especially elite infantry.

    160 points of Intercessors, or 8 Intercessors, do the following wounds without buffs to another MEQ squad:
    AutoBolt: 2.67, 4 in Tac Doctrine
    Bolt Rifle: 2.67, 3.56 in Tac Doctrine
    Stalker: 1.78, 2.22 in Devastator Doctrine; for 3.56 and 4.44 damage

    155 points of Eradicators, or three with two Heavy Meltas and one Multi-Melta, do the following wounds without buffs and having moved to a MEQ squad:
    Heavy Melta Rifles: 1.67, or 3.33 damage
    Multi-Melta: 1.67, or 3.06 damage

    The reason the Multi does less than the Heavy is that it has a slim chance of rolling a 1. But that's more damage dealt to MEQs than any variant of Intercessors with more points spent.

    Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
       
    Made in de
    Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






     kirotheavenger wrote:
    I'd rather just go back to the old to-wound chart.
    That'd create the effect you're trying to create by increasing toughness anyways.
    It'd also prevent small arms dealing damage to tanks.

    I know small arms aren't a bit threat gameplay wise.
    But firstly, it does feel gakky and silly to me when a lasgun inflicts appreciable damage to a tank.
    Secondly, I think it's just a waste of time to roll that attack. When it takes 72 lasguns or whatever to deal a wound to a tank, can't we just round that down to zero and say don't bother rolling?
    I know I can just choose not to, but half the time it's not up to me it's up to my opponent.


    IMO the problem is that everyone is reducing this to lasgun vs rhino. Strength and Toughness aren't the only values involved and neither is shooting the only way to damage tanks.

    There are plenty of other vehicles out there, like ork buggies and trukks, raiders, vypers and other things where you have a realistic chance of actually damaging or killing the vehicle in question with a lasgun.
    There also are plenty of guns with high AP and low strength value that should be able to punch through armor

    On top of that, no one is going to be shooting 72 lasguns at a tank. That is more than 7 units of guardsmen surrounding a single vehicle and shooting it for some reason. This discussion is going no where because people try to find solutions to edge cases that are theoretically possible, but rarely ever happen.

    Earth is not flat
    Vaccines work
    We've been to the moon
    Climate change is real
    Chemtrails aren't a thing
    Evolution is a fact
    Orks are not a melee army
    Stand up for science!
     
       
    Made in gb
    Longtime Dakkanaut




    Basically I think regular infantry guns should get a 10% return on a tank, mid-range guns should get about a 25% return and dedicated anti-tank should get around a 40-50% return.

    As it stands the dedicated anti-tank gets 100% returns, and this skews the game because it makes tanks (and monsters) far more vulnerable than other units. There aren't all that many things that get 100% returns shooting basic infantry. (There are some X+Y+Z=super combo effects, but that's a bit different to have MM - will travel.)
       
    Made in it
    Longtime Dakkanaut





    The issue isn't that easy to solve.
    It is true that (some) AT platforms can deal a huge amount of damage to heavy targets, but let's assume that we increase the Eradicators by 10 more points each. The result is that they go to a unit cost of 200... for 3 gravis models. Do you want to calculate the efficency of any kind of weapon against them? If you fix the efficiency of AT by increasing the cost them, you push them more and more into glass cannon territory. This isn't really healthy for the game.

    Points can't fix every issue, and this is one of those. Some of those units are over efficient, not undercosted.
    Every unit has a different issue. It should be identified and solved.
    Eradicators need to lose double shooting and go down in cost.
    Multimelta needs to lose range.
    Striders need a cost increase.

    Then we also have an issue with a few tanks being less durable than they should. All MBTs should get T8. This includes predators, hammerheads and fireprisms. Transports at T7 are fine.
    Then some particularly hard vehicles like Land Raiders and Russes can get to T9, and Monolith to T10.
    The game needs some T9 targets, to create an environment for strenght 9 and 10 weapons.
       
    Made in us
    Did Fulgrim Just Behead Ferrus?




    Noctis Labyrinthus

     H.B.M.C. wrote:
     Blackie wrote:
    Many posters here believe that tanks' problems are related to low and mid strength weapon, but it's false.
    If it were false, why would we be saying tanks/monsters are too fragile?

    And as many of us have been saying for months, it's mid-strength weapons. Don't bring low strength weapons into this to make it sound like we're complaining about lasguns and shootas taking out titans.

    It's the heavy bolters and gauss cannons of the world. Not the bolt pistols and shuirken catapults.


    No one who knows what they're doing is leaving their tanks at home because they're scared of heavy bolters.

    You're just wrong my man. Learn to live with it.
       
    Made in us
    Hurr! Ogryn Bone 'Ead!






     Tyran wrote:
     kurhanik wrote:

    I'd say your full of garbage there on T7 Marines and S9 Heavy Bolters, but this is GW we are talking about, so you really can't take anything for granted...

    To me personally I'd say T6-9 could then go to the most heavy and resilient infantry in the game, as well as things like the new Sister's Warsuits or the Primaris Marine open faced walker thing whose name I cannot for the life of me remember. Just for an example T6 Meganobz could be a thing - sure a dedicated anti tank round to the face will still paste them, but that isn't too much different from how it is now.


    I mean, Marines are supposed to be in the upper ends of infantry toughness, being super human warriors on super power armor and all that, only surpassed by the even more super-human and more super armored Custodes and special super variants of the Marine template (terminators, plague marines, rubrics, etc.) and some xenos super heavy infantry (Meganobs, Tyrant Guard, Wraithguard, battlesuits, etc)

    If you are going to leave T6 to 10 open for heavy infantry, Marines should be somewhere there.


    Hm? I didn't say heavy infantry in general, I said the heaviest infantry in the game might end up in the lower rungs of the region of T6-9 (probably T6 only) if Vehicles get bumped up to T10-20. Bumping literally everything up to that range does nothing but make S3 weapons lose any use they had and S4 worse against most targets. Its why I mentioned the Invictor Warsuit as an example - the suit does provide more protection than no suit at all, but its fully open front means that compared to a fully armored vehicle/dreadnought, it would have a lower Toughness. Just because there is a 3 point opening doesn't mean things need to be retrofitted into it, it just leaves design space for future placements.
       
     
    Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
    Go to: