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.

 Void__Dragon wrote:
You're just wrong my man.
So everyone who thinks tanks and monsters in 40k are too fragile is wrong? 16 pages of this and we're all wrong?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/22 23:48:18


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

 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Void__Dragon wrote:
You're just wrong my man.
So everyone who thinks tanks and monsters in 40k are too fragile is wrong? 16 pages of this and we're all wrong?



No, that isn't what void is saying. He, and a lot of us are saying that vehicles are fragile, but not because of Heavy bolters. To put it bluntly, if you want to waste your heavy bolters shooting my Buggies and battlewagons, go for it. I'd rather take fire from a couple of heavy bolters than a single melta gun.

 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
Executing Exarch






So how do we make tanks better ?
Any consensus?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/23 01:32:47


https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/772746.page#10378083 - My progress/failblog painting blog thingy

Eldar- 4436 pts


AngryAngel80 wrote:
I don't know, when I see awesome rules, I'm like " Baby, your rules looking so fine. Maybe I gotta add you to my first strike battalion eh ? "


 Eonfuzz wrote:


I would much rather everyone have a half ass than no ass.


"A warrior does not seek fame and honour. They come to him as he humbly follows his path"  
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Argive wrote:
So how do we make tanks better ?
Any consensus?


reduce dmg from anti-tank weapons. D3+3 is just ridiculous, and Melta in general is just broken. But since that isn't likely to happen we need to increase vehicle wounds by 30-50%

 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
Executing Exarch






10th edition ?

Would 1+ save for tanks not potentially offer some survivability?

An average 3+ save seems stupid.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/23 01:39:43


https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/772746.page#10378083 - My progress/failblog painting blog thingy

Eldar- 4436 pts


AngryAngel80 wrote:
I don't know, when I see awesome rules, I'm like " Baby, your rules looking so fine. Maybe I gotta add you to my first strike battalion eh ? "


 Eonfuzz wrote:


I would much rather everyone have a half ass than no ass.


"A warrior does not seek fame and honour. They come to him as he humbly follows his path"  
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins




Tacoma, WA, USA

 Argive wrote:
So how do we make tanks better ?
Any consensus?
There is no consensus because there isn't even an agreement on what is wrong with tanks.

The more I read this tread, the more I think the Main Battle Tanks (anything with AV13 or 14 on any side in pre-8th and no transport rule) need to move to a 2+ Save and we call it a day. That increases their durability against both small arms and anti-tank weapons without needing to adjust anything else.

And before anyone says that makes no difference, it decrease average damage taken by:
  • AP 0: 50%
  • AP -1: 33%
  • AP -2: 25%
  • AP -3: 20%
  • AP -4: 17%
  •    
    Made in gb
    Executing Exarch






    Yeah I thinkt hats not a bad shout.

    I get its an abstraction but I see no reason why a main battle tank should have the same save as a power armour/heavy armour for an infantry model.

    I'd advocate for a 1+ for heavy main line battle tanks. You are still saving ap-3 on a 4+ and get a save against -4. Anything that goes to -5 becomes really effective.

    https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/772746.page#10378083 - My progress/failblog painting blog thingy

    Eldar- 4436 pts


    AngryAngel80 wrote:
    I don't know, when I see awesome rules, I'm like " Baby, your rules looking so fine. Maybe I gotta add you to my first strike battalion eh ? "


     Eonfuzz wrote:


    I would much rather everyone have a half ass than no ass.


    "A warrior does not seek fame and honour. They come to him as he humbly follows his path"  
       
    Made in us
    Slaanesh Veteran Marine with Tentacles





     alextroy wrote:

    The more I read this tread, the more I think the Main Battle Tanks (anything with AV13 or 14 on any side in pre-8th and no transport rule) need to move to a 2+ Save and we call it a day. That increases their durability against both small arms and anti-tank weapons without needing to adjust anything else.

    And before anyone says that makes no difference, it decrease average damage taken by:
  • AP 0: 50%
  • AP -1: 33%
  • AP -2: 25%
  • AP -3: 20%
  • AP -4: 17%


  • It's simple, and that alone offers the suggestion some merit.

    That'd apply to:

    Predators
    Vindicators
    Russes and all variants
    Hammerheads

    ...Am I forgetting a huge pile of them or was AV13+ actually pretty rare? Though some of those cases already have Sv2+ (e.g. Land Raiders)

    Would Primaris Gladiators fall under this, seeing as they never had an AV but seem to fit the role?
    Would superheavies, e.g. Lords of Skulls, Baneblades and family?
    Would Imperial/Chaos Knights that aren't mini-Knights, given that it might skew the list even harder?

     the_scotsman wrote:
    "here's this faction that we've turned into a gigantic uber-customizable metagolem of infinite customizability, you can have them in a car on the ground in a plane, in every conceivable playstyle that exists in the game, every single represented aesthetic, ninety-trillion different armor marks and styles, historical inspirations, every color in the rainbow, every race and culture of humanity...

    ...but you CANT make them ladies. that is the sacred line across which we must throw our bodies and souls! Space Marines can be every conceivable configuration of 'your dudes' imaginable, SO LONG AS YOU DO NOT IMAGINE THEM AS YOUR DUDETTES!"
     
       
    Made in au
    Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






    Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

    SemperMortis wrote:
    No, that isn't what void is saying. He, and a lot of us are saying that vehicles are fragile, but not because of Heavy bolters. To put it bluntly, if you want to waste your heavy bolters shooting my Buggies and battlewagons, go for it. I'd rather take fire from a couple of heavy bolters than a single melta gun.
    But Meltaguns should be killing vehicles. The lethality of anti-tank weapons isn't the issue. They're anti-tank weapons. That's the point!

    I guess I just to restate what people continue to either miss or (blatantly) misrepresent:

     H.B.M.C. wrote:
    If the choice is between a weapon that does everything kinda well, or a weapon that only does one thing really well, the better choice is the former, even if it's not effective at one specific role. Taking mid-strength mid-damage multi-shot weapons is good because they basically could do anything, even if it wasn't the most efficient thing to do. Taking dedicated anti-tank weapons was a crap shoot because of swingy damage (D6) and because they were too specific, sometimes too expensive, and just weren't actually any good (no one took Multi-Meltas before they turned them into proper AT weapons).

    GW recognised that anti-tank weapons weren't really a big deal, so we saw an increase of the lethality (like the quantum shift the MM experienced). Unfortunately, the durability of vehicles did not change, so not only do we have the kinda-good weapons doing damage to them, but now the far-more-dangerous AT weapons. If you put the price on these more scary AT weapons up, people just go back to the weapons that can do everything, even if they don't do everything as well as the AT weapons kill tanks, because for the same price you can bring more of them.

    It's the exact same concept of Guard heavy weaponry in 3rd/4th/5th. The Autocannon was S7. Krak missiles were S8. The Krak missile is clearly better, right? Well no, because it fires one shot at BS3 and the Autocannon fired 2. This meant that, on average, the Autocannon would hit once a turn, whereas the Krak Missile would miss 3 turns out of the usual 6 turn game. The Autocannon was a weaker weapon on paper, but it was always the better choice, because it was more reliable, and therefore ended up being more effective, even if it was a weaker weapon and couldn't hurt AV14. More lower strength shots were better than one higher strength shot.

    The problem isn't the AT weaponry (although they did need to be better to actually be good at anti-tank work), the problem is that tanks can be killed by everything thanks to the stupid To Wound chart and the low wound counts on vehicles. Whether points on MMs need to go up or down is immaterial. The change needs to be made to the vehicles itself, be it reductions in damage, more wounds, something else, or all of the above.
    My position isn't that tanks fear Heavy Bolters. My position is that tanks shouldn't even have to consider them in the first place. Or anything of that calibre. It's stupid that a Heavy Bolter and an Autocannon both wound a Land Raider on a 5+. It's stupid that that a Reaver Titan has the same Toughness as a Wraithlord.

    Again, GW had to go out of its way to make anti-tank weapons worth taking in 9th, to the point of overcompensating for their previous weaknesses, but they:

    1). Did nothing to change the fragility of vehicles.
    2). Did nothing to make the things that were killing vehicles any weaker (and in one case, made them stronger).

    So the problems from 8th remain now with the added problems of everyone freaking out over Multi-Meltas.



    This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/06/23 04:10:55


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

     
       
    Made in hk
    Longtime Dakkanaut





    My bigger issue is that superheavies like Knights and Lord of Skulls still only have a 3+ armor save. Seriously why? If even a Land raider has a 2+ save, why should such superheavies have only a 3+ armor save...

    These titanic units to me would qualify as being in the same tier of Leman Russ and Land Raiders so they really should be bumped up to a 2+ armor save. Like you are telling me a Lord of Skulls is less armoured than a Land Raider? That thing is an armored monstrosity on tank tracks. Just look at that huge armor plate in front of the thing. How can it reasonably only have a 3+ armor save???
       
    Made in de
    Prophetic Blood Angel Librarian






    Germany

    Any T7+ vehicle should have a 2+ sv, and superheavies a 4+ inv as well. Vehicles with T5/6 should have a 3+ sv.
       
    Made in it
    Gargantuan Gargant




    Italy

     Blndmage wrote:

    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.


    IMHO something like a Monolith, or any other 360 points vehicle, should be able to soak 7-8 dedicated anti tank shots that by-passed saves before dying. So yeah, 48 wounds to me doesn't sound unreasonable. Not when weapons that can deal 6-8 damage per shot exist, and can be easily spammed and/or enhanced.


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
     H.B.M.C. wrote:

    But Meltaguns should be killing vehicles. The lethality of anti-tank weapons isn't the issue. They're anti-tank weapons. That's the point!


    Yes, they should be killy against vehicles. But they shouldn't simply point, click and delete a vehicle. If a TAC army can spam 20+ anti tank shots, with tools to make them better, then it is an issue. No army should be able to kill 2-3 tanks per turn with average rolls. If armies could only have 5-7 melta/lascannon shots for the entire army then I agree, they deserve to be devastating and things would be balanced. But their current rate of fire isn't fair compared to the stats of vehicles. Other than increasing vehicles' wounds a solution could be to increase the point costs of anti tank weapons, but dramatically. And to be honest I think that a 200 points unit of Eradicators would still be worthy with its devastating firepower and its staying power that is comparable, if not higher, to 150-180 points tanks. Melta bikes would be 80-90 points, basically like the cheapest ork buggy, etc...

    What I can't really accept is that 2 melta shots can potentially kill a T8 16W 2+ save vehicle, but only 2 gravis dudes. That vehicle costs twice the unit of 3 gravis dudes and has comparable firepower. That's unacceptable.

    This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/23 07:00:31



     
       
    Made in gb
    Fixture of Dakka







    I'm intrigued, Blackie - what sort of TAC list is packing 20+ AT shots, while still bringing sufficient anti-elite and anti-horde firepower?

    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 it
    Gargantuan Gargant




    Italy

     Dysartes wrote:
    I'm intrigued, Blackie - what sort of TAC list is packing 20+ AT shots, while still bringing sufficient anti-elite and anti-horde firepower?


    Any SM list does it for starters. Eradicators alone can fire 6 melta shots with no penalty for 135 points. Attack bike have 2 shots for 55 points. And overchared plasma is pretty good against tanks. Not to mention all the sources of mortal wounds.

    Drukhari and Sisters can easily spam meltas or lances of any kinds and have access to ways to deal mortal wounds pretty reliably. Even orks can bring tons of S8 shots (I definitely bring more than 20), although the lower BS has a huge impact. Among the 9th codexes I think only DG doesn't spam that many anti tank, although it can absolutely wreck multiple tanks by charging them.

    And unfortunately people seem reluctant to invest a significant fraction of the points budget in anti horde firepower. A very powerful unit like Aggressors is considered trash, while in fact it is amazing against hordes. I for example don't leave home without 48 assault cannons shots when I play my SW, as hordes here are common and I tend to ignore anti elite tools using anti tank and massed anti infantry shots to fill that role, but the general consensus is to avoid units like razorbacks and to focus on anti tank and anti elite platforms instead.

    This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/06/23 08:06:06



     
       
    Made in ca
    Legendary Master of the Chapter





     Blackie wrote:

    And unfortunately people seem reluctant to invest a significant fraction of the points budget in anti horde firepower. A very powerful unit like Aggressors is considered trash, while in fact it is amazing against hordes. I for example don't leave home without 48 assault cannons shots when I play my SW, as hordes here are common and I tend to ignore anti elite tools using anti tank and massed anti infantry shots to fill that role, but the general consensus is to avoid units like razorbacks and to focus on anti tank and anti elite platforms instead.


    a big part of that is the "TAC" mentality. which, as I've said before mostly consists of essentially building around power armor armies, thus tools to deal with other army types tend to be dismissed.


    Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two 
       
    Made in hk
    Longtime Dakkanaut





    So I think after so many pages, I feel the need for us to group tanks and vehicles into categories and here is my opinion on each other these categories of tanks:

    Group 1: Rhinos, Razorbacks, light tanks equivalent, Raiders - T6 or T7. 3+ armour save, 10 wounds seems to be fine.

    Group 2: Predator tanks, Sisters Battle Tanks, other similar equivalent battle tanks - T7, 2+ armor save, maybe up the wounds to 13W?

    Group 3: Heavy tanks like Leman Russ, Land Raiders - T8, 2+ armor save, tons of wounds. Easily 16W or maybe even 18W for a LR.

    Group 4: Superheavy tanks and vehicles like Baneblades, Lord of Skulls, Knights - T8, 2+ Armor save, 5+ invulnerable save, at least 24W.

    They will still die to enough anti tank, but they are now resilient enough for their categories that they feel like proper tanks. And with a 2+ save for three of these categories, light weapons like bolters won't do much against most tanks anymore. I would also propose a change to open top rules. Right now, it seems like an outright benefit of being able to shoot embarked in the open topped vehicle with little downside. But in fact, troops in an open topped vehicle are actually pretty vulnerable.

    I would propose that you can aim and specifically shoot at troops inside an open topped vehicle, but possible with a -1 to hit because its harder to hit men inside a moving vehicle. At the same time, this -1 to hit applies to men shooting from an open topped vehicle as well, because again, you are less accurate shooting from a bumpy ride. I would also propose that a multiwound weapon that hits the open topped vehicle will do half of its damage to the unit inside that vehicle too. A missile exploding upon a lorry is going to do damage to the people in the lorry as they are so exposed in the lorry.

    This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/23 09:26:07


     
       
    Made in de
    Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






     Argive wrote:
    Yeah I thinkt hats not a bad shout.

    I get its an abstraction but I see no reason why a main battle tank should have the same save as a power armour/heavy armour for an infantry model.

    I'd advocate for a 1+ for heavy main line battle tanks. You are still saving ap-3 on a 4+ and get a save against -4. Anything that goes to -5 becomes really effective.


    I think 1+ should be an option for exceptionally durable tanks like the LR, but to put it on tanks in general? Not a fan.

    Cranking up wounds for tanks and maybe adding T9, 1+ armor, -1 to damage or just an extra pile of wounds on select tanks that are supposed exceptionally durable. AV14 wasn't exactly handed out like candy in editions of old, and these abilities should be just as rare. For example, anything less durable than a LR or a monolith has no business being T9.

    The issue is that some armies just cut through vehicles like butter because they have these insanely high AP, high strength, reliable damage, low cost guns like lances or multi-melta. Others have to rely on lascannons and battle cannons to kill stuff which are both expensive and unreliable. On the other side of the spectrum, you have orks trying to explode tanks with AP-2 3 DMG weapons who miss two thirds of their shots or death guard who have to fight battletanks with battletanks or scythes.

    Essentially there obviously is the option to re-build the whole system from ground up, but we have no guarantee that this system will work any better - even if it's fine for tanks, you will be tossing any progress we have made for infantry durability out the window.

    Those two combined, any solution with a real chance of being implemented needs to integrate with the current game and without massive changes to weapons and has to work just as well for multi-meltas as it does for rokkits.

    Tyel wrote:
    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.)

    This post by Tyel pretty much nailed the problem. You can't kill an intercessor with 20 points, you can't kill an ork boy for 8 points and you can't kill a blightlord for 40 points. However, killing a 175 point tank with 175 points of anti-tank is no problem whatsoever, despite tanks being much easier to target and kill due to their bulk.

    Taking Tyel's numbers at face value, a devastator with multi-melta is currently 38 points and takes a 2.33 damage out of a LRBT, which is 160 points. It takes five such 38 point models to kill a LRBT on average (slightly rounded), so the the efficiency is for MM devs killing a rather durable battle tank is 81.75%. When they move into melta range, it even jumps up to 128.66%. Just for comparison, the efficiency of heavy bolter devs killing T4 orks is 21.05%, chaingun havoc come up to 75.68%.
    Looking at those numbers of a rather mediocre anti-tank unit from the most played army in the game, no one should be surprised why tanks keep flying off the table.

    Mathing out the whole thing, in order for MM devs to go down to that 40-50% efficiency, a LRBT would have to have to go up to 20-25 wounds. Toying with the numbers a bit I think 60% at 24" range is still very good, which would mean 16 wound LRBTs. Even if you want them to kill T8 tanks just as well as chaingun havocs kill orks, it could still would have to go up by two wounds.

    Of course, all these numbers are based on the rather arbitrary example of devastators vs LRBT with just a battlecannon, but I think it demonstrates the problem perfectly.

    So maybe 40-50% is a bit ambitious, but when units holding long-range meltas can jog or even drive up the field and kill vehicles at way beyond 100% efficiency, tanks definitely need more wounds.
    Increasing wounds also has the advantage that no army gets left behind - everyone has the ability to do d6 or 3 damage.

    TLDR: Crank up vehicle wounds across the board by 25-50% to make them just as durable as infantry. This won't break any armies ability to handle vehicles and works equally well against erradicators as it does against tankbustas. In any case, some anti-tank plattforms need to be looked at as well. The MM is clearly not a problem when put on dreads, MBH or gladiator tanks, but it is when put on infantry or bikes.

    This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2021/06/23 09:36:04


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




    Italy

    Eldenfirefly wrote:
    So I think after so many pages, I feel the need for us to group tanks and vehicles into categories and here is my opinion on each other these categories of tanks:

    Group 1: Rhinos, Razorbacks, light tanks equivalent, Raiders - T6 or T7. 3+ armour save, 10 wounds seems to be fine.

    Group 2: Predator tanks, Sisters Battle Tanks, other similar equivalent battle tanks - T7, 2+ armor save, maybe up the wounds to 13W?

    Group 3: Heavy tanks like Leman Russ, Land Raiders - T8, 2+ armor save, tons of wounds. Easily 16W or maybe even 18W for a LR.

    Group 4: Superheavy tanks and vehicles like Baneblades, Lord of Skulls, Knights - T8, 2+ Armor save, 5+ invulnerable save, at least 24W.

    They will still die to enough anti tank, but they are now resilient enough for their categories that they feel like proper tanks. And with a 2+ save for three of these categories, light weapons like bolters won't do much against most tanks anymore. I would also propose a change to open top rules. Right now, it seems like an outright benefit of being able to shoot embarked in the open topped vehicle with little downside. But in fact, troops in an open topped vehicle are actually pretty vulnerable.

    I would propose that you can aim and specifically shoot at troops inside an open topped vehicle, but possible with a -1 to hit because its harder to hit men inside a moving vehicle. At the same time, this -1 to hit applies to men shooting from an open topped vehicle as well, because again, you are less accurate shooting from a bumpy ride. I would also propose that a multiwound weapon that hits the open topped vehicle will do half of its damage to the unit inside that vehicle too. A missile exploding upon a lorry is going to do damage to the people in the lorry as they are so exposed in the lorry.



    With your suggestions tanks would be basically at the same level they are now. LR for example already has 16W, do you think that giving it +2W would solve anything. Give it +10/16 wounds instead. Now it feels like a proper tank, can soak a lot of mid/low strenght shots but still dies to 4-5 proper successful anti tank hits.

    I also dislike the -1 to hit for open topped vehicles or embarked units. Those are supposed to rely on that tactics, meaning it's how they fight since ages. Makes sense that they're good in doing that. Units inside are also very vulnerable to the death of the transport, especially if we're talking about armored multiwound models. And overall lethality of the game is already too high, there's no need to elevate it even more.


     
       
    Made in de
    Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






    Eldenfirefly wrote:
    They will still die to enough anti tank, but they are now resilient enough for their categories that they feel like proper tanks. And with a 2+ save for three of these categories, light weapons like bolters won't do much against most tanks anymore. I would also propose a change to open top rules. Right now, it seems like an outright benefit of being able to shoot embarked in the open topped vehicle with little downside. But in fact, troops in an open topped vehicle are actually pretty vulnerable.

    I would propose that you can aim and specifically shoot at troops inside an open topped vehicle, but possible with a -1 to hit because its harder to hit men inside a moving vehicle. At the same time, this -1 to hit applies to men shooting from an open topped vehicle as well, because again, you are less accurate shooting from a bumpy ride. I would also propose that a multiwound weapon that hits the open topped vehicle will do half of its damage to the unit inside that vehicle too. A missile exploding upon a lorry is going to do damage to the people in the lorry as they are so exposed in the lorry.



    Yes, because open topped transports totally need yet another nerf...

    Not every unit riding an open topped transport is a unit of trueborn. The downside of staying inside transports is losing 1/6th of the unit when you blow it up and no access to buffs or stratagems. If a unit is too good at shooting from transports, fix that unit.

    The only reason to even think about your suggestions would be if units could disembark and charge from open topped transports after moving.

    This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/23 09:42:42


    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
    Ship's Officer





    Bristol (UK)

    The problem with 1+ saves is that they're effectively a 2+ invuln due to GW's silly dice mechanics (anything less than a 1 just becomes a 1 and succeeds).
    So that's not really an option.

    Otherwise I agree.
    TBH I'd also like to reduce multi-meltas to 1 attack though anyway. As dedicated anti-tank guns they're pretty brutal against even moderately elite infantry as well, which is part of why they're so popular, since they're effective even without tanks to shoot.

    This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/23 09:42:11


     
       
    Made in it
    Gargantuan Gargant




    Italy

     kirotheavenger wrote:

    TBH I'd also like to reduce multi-meltas to 1 attack though anyway. As dedicated anti-tank guns they're pretty brutal against even moderately elite infantry as well, which is part of why they're so popular, since they're effective even without tanks to shoot.


    I'm fine with 2 attacks from multi-meltas, those weapons actually look like double melta guns. Just price them appropriately. A single shot lascannon is 15 points (and IMHO it's already quite cheap), so why on Earth a multi-melta should be just 20? Make it 30 or even 40.

    This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/23 10:40:14



     
       
    Made in pl
    Fixture of Dakka




    How about it should be linked to the cost of the model that carries it, withing a given army. So we don't suddenly start nerfing armies that don't have eradictors and attack bikes out of their only source anti tank.


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
     Jidmah wrote:


    Yes, because open topped transports totally need yet another nerf...

    Not every unit riding an open topped transport is a unit of trueborn.

    Yet every multi melta is played in a white scar or a ultramarine army? And open topped vehicles do need more nerfs, then break the core rule of the game that stuff not on the table can't interact with other stuff on it. They buff the resiliance and speed of units they carry, and for some strange reason GW decided that with those buffs, they should somehow be cheaper then non open topped vehicles , which are worse.

    This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/23 10:54:27


    If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
       
    Made in gb
    Ship's Officer





    Bristol (UK)

    That's literally the point of Open Topped vehicles, to allow the occupants to shoot out.
    Theoretically Open Topped transports have lower toughness/saves than equivalent non-open topped vehicles.
    Price may vary though, but it only seems to be Dark Eldar transports that are causing issues, which tells me it's not a fundemental problem with Open Topped itself.

    The whole "units in a transport don't exist" rule is silly and is part of why transports are so bad right now.
       
    Made in it
    Dakka Veteran




     Blackie wrote:
     kirotheavenger wrote:

    TBH I'd also like to reduce multi-meltas to 1 attack though anyway. As dedicated anti-tank guns they're pretty brutal against even moderately elite infantry as well, which is part of why they're so popular, since they're effective even without tanks to shoot.


    I'm fine with 2 attacks from multi-meltas, those weapons actually look like double melta guns. Just price them appropriately. A single shot lascannon is 15 points (and IMHO it's already quite cheap), so why on Earth a multi-melta should be just 20? Make it 30 or even 40.


    Lascannon is 20 not 15 pts atm
       
    Made in pl
    Longtime Dakkanaut





     CEO Kasen wrote:
    It's simple, and that alone offers the suggestion some merit.

    That'd apply to:

    Predators
    Vindicators
    Russes and all variants
    Hammerheads

    ...Am I forgetting a huge pile of them or was AV13+ actually pretty rare? Though some of those cases already have Sv2+ (e.g. Land Raiders)

    Would Primaris Gladiators fall under this, seeing as they never had an AV but seem to fit the role?

    Gladiators really should, they are tougher than half of the things on this list. Though issue is, a lot of SM dreadnought variants had AV 13 (and both primaris ones would have if they were on old scale) - imagine usual screeching about OP!!1!one! if combat variants got that and became as durable as they are in the fluff.

    All this stat inflation does is pretty much guaranteeing SM will become S5 T6 WS/BS 2+ in the next book to keep them fluffy and balanced - and I can already hear the howls we will hear then and mental gymnastics of people who claimed orkstodes are fLuFfY but SM being tougher than orks like they always were is cOmPLeTeLy WrOnG

     Argive wrote:
    So how do we make tanks better?

    How about going back to what we know worked - delete idiotic W2 buff, only primaris get W2. Orkstodes back to T3 S3, they are horde army, not superelite. Stupid gun inflation back to Index values (with some more nerfs, some Index guns were broken too). Presto, people were taking tanks back in Index era, they would take them back now. Maybe buff heaviest of them a tiny bit because they weren't exactly groundbreaking but at least we saw different army compositions back then unlike today even with that imbalance. Done.

    The only other alternative is doubling tank/monster W and then you will make them broken against everything that didn't inflate, making the balance just as bad, only in different way.

    Eldenfirefly wrote:
    My bigger issue is that superheavies like Knights and Lord of Skulls still only have a 3+ armor save. Seriously why? If even a Land raider has a 2+ save, why should such superheavies have only a 3+ armor save...

    Because they used to be AV13. Don't ask me why, maybe they have too much gaps in armor or poor quality plating. Land Raiders used to be tougher than most superheavies in the game and somehow it wasn't issue back then. 3+ is fine, if they are bigger, they should have more wounds, not contribute to stat inflation in yet another way.

     H.B.M.C. wrote:
    My position is that tanks shouldn't even have to consider them in the first place. Or anything of that calibre.

    And when that mythical edition when they didn't consider them was? Already forgot scatbikes and asscan spam glancing everything to death with laughable ease when tanks were effectively W2 in past editions? If anything, current edition where they can finally laugh at some mid strength weapons is a vast improvement.

    It's stupid that a Heavy Bolter and an Autocannon both wound a Land Raider on a 5+.

    Completely wrong. That is not an issue, other than straw 'my tanks were invulnerable once, how dare they gave my opponent some agenda instead of sitting there powerless' pining for worst 40K editions that sometimes shows up on Dakka. It's both better for the game and more realistic. What is an issue, though, is stupid gun inflation - if HB or AC were D1, like in index, tanks would just shrug at them, 5+ or not. It's the D2 to counter the dumbest, W2 knee jerk change to shut up people screeching about squatting (which, funnily enough didn't even work) that effectively cut the tanks wounds in half by making previously OK weapons twice as strong. Remove both and it's not an issue again.
       
    Made in us
    Dive-Bombin' Fighta-Bomba Pilot






     Irbis wrote:
     CEO Kasen wrote:
    It's simple, and that alone offers the suggestion some merit.

    That'd apply to:

    Predators
    Vindicators
    Russes and all variants
    Hammerheads

    ...Am I forgetting a huge pile of them or was AV13+ actually pretty rare? Though some of those cases already have Sv2+ (e.g. Land Raiders)

    Would Primaris Gladiators fall under this, seeing as they never had an AV but seem to fit the role?

    Gladiators really should, they are tougher than half of the things on this list. Though issue is, a lot of SM dreadnought variants had AV 13 (and both primaris ones would have if they were on old scale) - imagine usual screeching about OP!!1!one! if combat variants got that and became as durable as they are in the fluff.

    All this stat inflation does is pretty much guaranteeing SM will become S5 T6 WS/BS 2+ in the next book to keep them fluffy and balanced - and I can already hear the howls we will hear then and mental gymnastics of people who claimed orkstodes are fLuFfY but SM being tougher than orks like they always were is cOmPLeTeLy WrOnG

     Argive wrote:
    So how do we make tanks better?

    How about going back to what we know worked - delete idiotic W2 buff, only primaris get W2. Orkstodes back to T3 S3, they are horde army, not superelite. Stupid gun inflation back to Index values (with some more nerfs, some Index guns were broken too). Presto, people were taking tanks back in Index era, they would take them back now. Maybe buff heaviest of them a tiny bit because they weren't exactly groundbreaking but at least we saw different army compositions back then unlike today even with that imbalance. Done.

    The only other alternative is doubling tank/monster W and then you will make them broken against everything that didn't inflate, making the balance just as bad, only in different way.

    Eldenfirefly wrote:
    My bigger issue is that superheavies like Knights and Lord of Skulls still only have a 3+ armor save. Seriously why? If even a Land raider has a 2+ save, why should such superheavies have only a 3+ armor save...

    Because they used to be AV13. Don't ask me why, maybe they have too much gaps in armor or poor quality plating. Land Raiders used to be tougher than most superheavies in the game and somehow it wasn't issue back then. 3+ is fine, if they are bigger, they should have more wounds, not contribute to stat inflation in yet another way.

     H.B.M.C. wrote:
    My position is that tanks shouldn't even have to consider them in the first place. Or anything of that calibre.

    And when that mythical edition when they didn't consider them was? Already forgot scatbikes and asscan spam glancing everything to death with laughable ease when tanks were effectively W2 in past editions? If anything, current edition where they can finally laugh at some mid strength weapons is a vast improvement.

    It's stupid that a Heavy Bolter and an Autocannon both wound a Land Raider on a 5+.

    Completely wrong. That is not an issue, other than straw 'my tanks were invulnerable once, how dare they gave my opponent some agenda instead of sitting there powerless' pining for worst 40K editions that sometimes shows up on Dakka. It's both better for the game and more realistic. What is an issue, though, is stupid gun inflation - if HB or AC were D1, like in index, tanks would just shrug at them, 5+ or not. It's the D2 to counter the dumbest, W2 knee jerk change to shut up people screeching about squatting (which, funnily enough didn't even work) that effectively cut the tanks wounds in half by making previously OK weapons twice as strong. Remove both and it's not an issue again.


    weren't orks T4 before space marines were switched to T4? or did you mean back to T4? Like OG warhammer orks were tougher but worse saves, space marines were less tough but better armor. though also of note in 1st there were actually female space marines so we are going quite a bit back.

    they used to be S3 with furios charge so they were S4 on the charge but as furious charge was taken away as a USR they simplified to S4, do you mean to give that back +1str on the charge or just nerf orks to gaunt stats while costing almost double the points because reasons? Personally what attracted me to orks was a reasonably tough horde zipping up the board in vehicles to get out and have a proper fight in close combat where other factions prefer ranged mostly.

    10000 points 7000
    6000
    5000
    5000
    2000
     
       
    Made in it
    Gargantuan Gargant




    Italy

    KurtAngle2 wrote:


    Lascannon is 20 not 15 pts atm


    For tactical marines and devastators, which if I'm not mistaken they're the only SM infantries that can be equipped with lascannons, they cost 15ppm unless I missed some FAQ.

    Of course 20ppm lascannons would make the 40ppm multi meltas argument even stronger.


     
       
    Made in gb
    Ship's Officer





    Bristol (UK)

    1st didn't have official female space marines, that was written by a 3rd party magazine.
    That was back when companies didn't mind other companies doing stuff for them. I think Necromunda did a lot set in the Judge Dredd universe? Hence Arbites.

    In general I agree with Orks being a tough 'horde', rather than a true horde.
       
    Made in hk
    Longtime Dakkanaut





    As it stand right now. Opened topped only has advantages and no disadvantages is what I can see. The obvious advantage of open topped vehicles is that the troops inside are free to shoot despite being embarked in it. And there is zero downside to it compared to a transport that is not open topped.

    Disembark and embark rules are exactly the same. Everything else is the same. Does having an open topped rule
    make a vehicle more expensive? Because it is outright better as a transport compared to one which does not have that rule. It doesn't seem to be the case. Since a raider is as expensive as a Rhino.

    The whole idea of staying safely inside a LR or a Rhino as opposed to being in an open topped vehicle is that the troops inside are more safely protected. That is currently not reflected at all. The troops inside an open topped vehicle are just as protected as those in a normal transport, because in both cases, they cannot be targeted until the transport is destroyed. Yet, the troops inside an open topped vehicle get to shoot out.
       
    Made in au
    Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






    Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

     Irbis wrote:
    And when that mythical edition when they didn't consider them was? Already forgot scatbikes and asscan spam glancing everything to death with laughable ease when tanks were effectively W2 in past editions? If anything, current edition where they can finally laugh at some mid strength weapons is a vast improvement.
    Uh-huh. Sure.

    Heavy Bolters, Scatter Lasers, Assault Cannons - AV14 tanks could just ignore those. AV13 as well. Completely. There were no danger to that front armour, and sometimes even that side armour. Rear armour, sure, but that made sense. AV12 was even a 6. Now all of those are at least 5's. That's a big difference. And while it's true that tanks could explode from any glancing/penetrating hit, rather than slowly losing wounds (idiotic Hull Points notwithstanding), there are a whole host of weapons that tanks in 8th/9th are vulnerable to now on account of that fething To Wound chart.

     Irbis wrote:
    Completely wrong.
    What a shock to see that as the first line in a paragraph from you. Do you know any other tunes?

     Irbis wrote:
    That is not an issue, other than straw 'my tanks were invulnerable once, how dare they gave my opponent some agenda instead of sitting there powerless' pining for worst 40K editions that sometimes shows up on Dakka.
    As usual, your prattle has very little to do with what you're replying to. "pining for the worst editions"... I mean, just what the feth are you talking about? Certainly nothing that I talked about in my last post, despite you quoting me.

    This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/06/23 14:57:50


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

     
       
     
    Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
    Go to: