Switch Theme:

How to make tanks better  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







Eldenfirefly wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
Eldenfirefly wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Faster, a better gun, an invul save and the ability to fly over everything? Yeah that sounds like 15 points worth of bonuses to me.


And what about open topped? That is worth zero points? What about all the splinter rifles, blastor guns, plasma grenades, pistols, and liquifier guns that can fire out of raiders just because of open topped. And that is worth zero points?


Do you not have to pay for the squad you put in the Raider anymore?


Sigh, what are we discussing about here. open topped allows these units to fire while embarked in these units. We have to pay for all our units. Just like space marines, sisters and every other faction without having open topped transports have to pay for their units in transports too. But they don't get an open topped rule that lets their units shoot out. So, open topped rule doesn't matter? Its definitely gives an advantage over a non open topped vehicle and should be worth something.


Because we're discussing a complicated game, in which everyone has very slightly different opinions on what's wrong, in a pedantic environment where everyone jumps on every little detail they disagree with because if you're completely right but phrased one thing imprecisely that's an opportunity for them to jump in and be right.

Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using.
Homebrew oldhammer project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/790996.page#10896267
Meridian: Necromunda-based 40k skirmish: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/795374.page 
   
Made in us
Calculating Commissar




pontiac, michigan; usa

Dark eldar the faction that hit hard and go fast but are fragile in general. Wyches in the open have a 6++ save, STR 3, t3 and 1 wound (they hit a lot and have some ap but still STR 3). Wanna trade with your primaris ?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/24 04:38:33


Join skavenblight today!

http://the-under-empire.proboards.com/ (my skaven forum) 
   
Made in hk
Longtime Dakkanaut





 flamingkillamajig wrote:
Dark eldar the faction that hit hard and go fast but are fragile in general. Wyches in the open have a 6++ save, STR 3, t3 and 1 wound (they hit a lot and have some ap but still STR 3). Wanna trade with your primaris ?


And at this point. We are so far away from the original topic already lol. Because we were discussing tanks... lol
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






Eldenfirefly wrote:
Are you referring to trukks? I would agree if a trukk was the same point cost as a rhino. Because then we are saying that this open topped rule literally is equal to losing 1 point of toughness and 1 point of armor save. But Trukks are less expensive than a Rhino. So, we could say that this lessor stats is reflected in the cheaper point cost. This means they got open topped as a rule absolutely free. And given that open topped literally allows your troops inside to fire out from the transport, its hardly a rule that should be free ...

The same is said for raiders. We can say that they have "lower stats", but they also have a powerful darklance, they fly, they have invul save, and they have open topped. All those extras can't possibly be free...


No, to battlewagons which literally decide between +1T or open topped.

Even ignoring that comparing codices between two codices is always dumb, the rhino is just 15 points more than a trukk and gets a ton of stuff for those points - better shooting, extra toughness, extra armor, smoke, doctrines and weapon options.
And let's not forget the passengers that don't die if looked at funny after their transport folded.
Marine can have open topped for free on their rhinos if they lose the toughness, armor, stratagems and all their power armor. And I would gladly trade open topped on trukks for a pair of storm bolters, +1T and 3+ on both the trukk and the ladz.

Both open topped battlewagons and trukks are clearly overcosted, as proven by the total absence from most ork lists outside of odd movement shenanigans.
So essentially, you are just flat wrong. Open topped isn't free, it part of the transport's cost. Or, to put it in another perspective, the transport is part of the unit's cost to give it any chance of surviving on the table at all.

Essentially, you are just complaining about raiders being too good - which yo might totally be right about - but then randomly identified open topped as a culprit and want to nerf that. Open topped is absolutely not a problem in many other constellation, and such a nerf would cause a lot of collateral damage. This is horrible Kirby-GW-style balancing. If raiders are broken, fix raiders. Don't break ork transports while trying to fix drukhari.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Eldenfirefly wrote:
 flamingkillamajig wrote:
Dark eldar the faction that hit hard and go fast but are fragile in general. Wyches in the open have a 6++ save, STR 3, t3 and 1 wound (they hit a lot and have some ap but still STR 3). Wanna trade with your primaris ?


And at this point. We are so far away from the original topic already lol. Because we were discussing tanks... lol


Not really - the reason why these armies have open topped transports is because their regular troops aren't as durable as marines. They are primarily used as a defensive upgrade.
Open topped is "for free" in the same manner as 2 wounds and 3+ armor on marines is "for free".

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/06/24 08:03:13


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
Neophyte Undergoing Surgeries




UK

I personally blame the surge in AP-, where tanks can generally be Sarah Whittled by some small arms fire rather than none, and AT weapons can now ignore tank saves completely.

Also, tourney net decks and WAAC mentality where they all maximise the sweatiest things, and dont even recommend taking tanks anymore because 3 guys with similar weaponry is better because mathhammer.

They also cant hold objectives well which the modern game is adamant on.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Raiders should probably be T5. Sort of fear they are going to go up and up when that's the easiest "fix" - and opens design space by making them more vulnerable to S5/S6 guns. Even then the only super-combo is that one unit of Trueborn. And I'm not sure they have that much impact on things in the round.

Otherwise its hard to see what open topped does. Orks are not taking advantage of it. GSC are not either.

Harlequins obviously benefit - but then they have so few units its kind of a feature.
   
Made in it
Longtime Dakkanaut





Raiders are hardly going to see any more nerfs.
Maybe 5 points somewhere down the line, but nothing more than that.
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






Tyel wrote:
Otherwise its hard to see what open topped does. Orks are not taking advantage of it.


All potential shooty passengers for transports are either extremely expensive or suck or both
Also, tellyporta exists. There is no need to bring a vehicle that dies instantly when you can just tellyport that expensive suicide unit wherever you want.

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
Omnipotent Necron Overlord






 AnomanderRake wrote:
Eldenfirefly wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
Eldenfirefly wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Faster, a better gun, an invul save and the ability to fly over everything? Yeah that sounds like 15 points worth of bonuses to me.


And what about open topped? That is worth zero points? What about all the splinter rifles, blastor guns, plasma grenades, pistols, and liquifier guns that can fire out of raiders just because of open topped. And that is worth zero points?


Do you not have to pay for the squad you put in the Raider anymore?


Sigh, what are we discussing about here. open topped allows these units to fire while embarked in these units. We have to pay for all our units. Just like space marines, sisters and every other faction without having open topped transports have to pay for their units in transports too. But they don't get an open topped rule that lets their units shoot out. So, open topped rule doesn't matter? Its definitely gives an advantage over a non open topped vehicle and should be worth something.


Because we're discussing a complicated game, in which everyone has very slightly different opinions on what's wrong, in a pedantic environment where everyone jumps on every little detail they disagree with because if you're completely right but phrased one thing imprecisely that's an opportunity for them to jump in and be right.

Generous but good analysis of the situation. Tribalism is the real problem. People have the better tanks right now want them to remain better. Same ole gak - different day. Make good suggestions then you yourself get accused of tribalism.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Jidmah wrote:
Tyel wrote:
Otherwise its hard to see what open topped does. Orks are not taking advantage of it.


All potential shooty passengers for transports are either extremely expensive or suck or both
Also, tellyporta exists. There is no need to bring a vehicle that dies instantly when you can just tellyport that expensive suicide unit wherever you want.

My argument has always been transport capacity should cost next to nothing. If you can deepstrike a unit for a CP...Transport from a vehicle which is much less reliable and has other disadvantages should cost less (Like...maybe 10-15 points added to a tank). Open topped on the other hand comes with a lot of Advantages over deep strike and should cost more. It ofc should scale with your ability to use the open topped ability - orks should not be paying much for it where DE should pay a lot.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/24 15:15:15


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
Daemonic Dreadnought




The dark hollows of Kentucky

 Jidmah wrote:
Tyel wrote:
Otherwise its hard to see what open topped does. Orks are not taking advantage of it.


All potential shooty passengers for transports are either extremely expensive or suck or both
Also, tellyporta exists. There is no need to bring a vehicle that dies instantly when you can just tellyport that expensive suicide unit wherever you want.

Which is the issue with many transports. Why pay for an expensive Land Raider or Spartan when you can just deep strike those terminators?

As for Raiders and Open Topped: Raiders are very good and happen to be Open Topped. That doesn't mean that everything that happens to be Open Topped is very good.
   
Made in us
Roarin' Runtherd




Honestly, in regards to the original topic, Tanks should be among the most durable things on the table, and if a Tank is packing a Large caliber weapon, its should be honestly quite difficult for an infantry model to withstand a hit from it. I'd honestly be for switching to a missile launcher type split (which I honestly advocate on other threads in Proposed rules) Issues occur naturally with large single shots being very unreliable. But I think tanks should have a AT/HE shot split available to them, (if they have solid shot weapons). The main gun of a tank should not be comparable to an infantry portable AT gun. To use WW2 as an example, as I often do, the Lascannon type weapons are honestly more akin, and should be, to 37/50mm lighter AT guns, in that they easily maneuverable, infantry portable, but should have issues with killing heavy tanks.

Things like IG's Battle cannons/Vanquisher Cannon, Ork Killkannons, the Gladiator's big Laser Destroyer (and the one on the Repulsor Executioner) the Craftworld Eldar's Fire Prism, the Tau's Railgun and the Tyranid Rupture Cannon should be better at cracking large targets, some more than others as I think that the more multipurpose guns shouldn't be as good as the specialist guns for the purpose. They should be better than their points in lighter guns at cracking things like Land Raiders, Battle Wagons, large monsters and their counterparts.

In order for this to occur, naturally heavy and light AT guns should be nature of cost, or ROF be biased towards other targets. If a Lascannon is a light AT gun and I personally think they are, then they should be relative cheap but should be ineffective against Leman Russ Tanks and their counter parts, as that is IMO a Medium Tank by 40k standards. Naturally I think handing out, higher T Values to tanks, higher strength values to heavy AT guns and higher damage values assigned as such.

To keep with my WW2 analogy, Melta weapons are essentially the counter part too, infantry portable HEAT rockets such as Panzerfausts, Panzershrecks, PIATs, and Bazookas. They should be very effective against tanks, high damage, but short ranged. This is one of the areas where one of the biggest problems of 40k lies, as the shrinking boards makes such short range., high damage guns more effective. The Melta as it exists should by its description in the fluff be for close range infantry defense against tanks. The Multimelta simply being a larger scale variant, similar to the Hungarian tank and tripod mounted AT Rockets which had far greater range and "stopping power" then the infantry counterparts. Imagine how much more potent IG would be if instead of having to cross a 2 foot distance on a 5 foot board, you had to cross a 6 foot distance on a 9 foot board to get to the enemy, specifically on hammer and anvil boards. Range and mobility are major issues which shrinking boards makes less and less relevant. It would be very different if those Eradicators couldn't even get close to enemy tanks without having to endure a few salvos, even from current weapons, then again in such an environment, either the fastest movers, or deepstrikes would simply become the order of the day, but my point is range would be a decisive issue in such an environment.

I'd say that under current conditions, raising the current T value and wounds of tanks. Applying rules that make them more durable than their points in heavy infantry, along with emphasis on the fact that Tanks should rule long range battles, but be very concerned about an enemy infantry squad closing with them. Make their primary weapon either having high output, or being incredibly precise and hard hitting. I'd be in favor of the Vanquisher gaining the stats of the Macharius Vanquisher's cannon (save shot count) and simply hitting on 2s base, in a similar fashion to the Shokk Rifle on my buggies. Yes have them have issues with Invulns, yes have them absolutely slap even a heavy tank if a Heavy Anti Tank gun actually gets past it's defenses. Yes I think T9 is a good starting point for medium tanks like the Russ/Predator, I think T10 for Heavy vehicles like macharius, Malcadors and Land raiders is warrented, along with heavier T values and more wounds for things like monoliths, Baneblades and other massive constructs. 40k Vehicles rather rapidly get to the scale where they're more akin to small naval vessels in terms of internal subdivision once they start increasing in size.


Note: In the event it comes up, I am a primarily Ork and Tyranid player, with a side group of Black Templars as I like the models.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/24 17:55:58


 
   
Made in us
Angelic Adepta Sororitas





panzerfront14 wrote:
Honestly, in regards to the original topic, Tanks should be among the most durable things on the table, and if a Tank is packing a Large caliber weapon, its should be honestly quite difficult for an infantry model to withstand a hit from it. I'd honestly be for switching to a missile launcher type split (which I honestly advocate on other threads in Proposed rules) Issues occur naturally with large single shots being very unreliable. But I think tanks should have a AT/HE shot split available to them, (if they have solid shot weapons). The main gun of a tank should not be comparable to an infantry portable AT gun. To use WW2 as an example, as I often do, the Lascannon type weapons are honestly more akin, and should be, to 37/50mm lighter AT guns, in that they easily maneuverable, infantry portable, but should have issues with killing heavy tanks.

Things like IG's Battle cannons/Vanquisher Cannon, Ork Killkannons, the Gladiator's big Laser Destroyer (and the one on the Repulsor Executioner) the Craftworld Eldar's Fire Prism, the Tau's Railgun and the Tyranid Rupture Cannon should be better at cracking large targets, some more than others as I think that the more multipurpose guns shouldn't be as good as the specialist guns for the purpose. They should be better than their points in lighter guns at cracking things like Land Raiders, Battle Wagons, large monsters and their counterparts.

In order for this to occur, naturally heavy and light AT guns should be nature of cost, or ROF be biased towards other targets. If a Lascannon is a light AT gun and I personally think they are, then they should be relative cheap but should be ineffective against Leman Russ Tanks and their counter parts, as that is IMO a Medium Tank by 40k standards. Naturally I think handing out, higher T Values to tanks, higher strength values to heavy AT guns and higher damage values assigned as such.

To keep with my WW2 analogy, Melta weapons are essentially the counter part too, infantry portable HEAT rockets such as Panzerfausts, Panzershrecks, PIATs, and Bazookas. They should be very effective against tanks, high damage, but short ranged. This is one of the areas where one of the biggest problems of 40k lies, as the shrinking boards makes such short range., high damage guns more effective. The Melta as it exists should by its description in the fluff be for close range infantry defense against tanks. The Multimelta simply being a larger scale variant, similar to the Hungarian tank and tripod mounted AT Rockets which had far greater range and "stopping power" then the infantry counterparts. Imagine how much more potent IG would be if instead of having to cross a 2 foot distance on a 5 foot board, you had to cross a 6 foot distance on a 9 foot board to get to the enemy, specifically on hammer and anvil boards. Range and mobility are major issues which shrinking boards makes less and less relevant. It would be very different if those Eradicators couldn't even get close to enemy tanks without having to endure a few salvos, even from current weapons, then again in such an environment, either the fastest movers, or deepstrikes would simply become the order of the day, but my point is range would be a decisive issue in such an environment.

I'd say that under current conditions, raising the current T value and wounds of tanks. Applying rules that make them more durable than their points in heavy infantry, along with emphasis on the fact that Tanks should rule long range battles, but be very concerned about an enemy infantry squad closing with them. Make their primary weapon either having high output, or being incredibly precise and hard hitting. I'd be in favor of the Vanquisher gaining the stats of the Macharius Vanquisher's cannon (save shot count) and simply hitting on 2s base, in a similar fashion to the Shokk Rifle on my buggies. Yes have them have issues with Invulns, yes have them absolutely slap even a heavy tank if a Heavy Anti Tank gun actually gets past it's defenses. Yes I think T9 is a good starting point for medium tanks like the Russ/Predator, I think T10 for Heavy vehicles like macharius, Malcadors and Land raiders is warrented, along with heavier T values and more wounds for things like monoliths, Baneblades and other massive constructs. 40k Vehicles rather rapidly get to the scale where they're more akin to small naval vessels in terms of internal subdivision once they start increasing in size.


Note: In the event it comes up, I am a primarily Ork and Tyranid player, with a side group of Black Templars as I like the models.


I have long been a proponent that infantry weapons should be weaker than vehicle/monster mounted weapons for similar reasonings. in same cases they already are, (default autocannon vs predator autocannon)

"If you are forced to use your trump card, then the battle is already lost" 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





I think the length and round and rounds in this very thread is why we don't have tanks actually really improving ever. If we can assume that these same talks happen in GW, which unless we think they are totally brain dead we have to assume they have, there isn't real agreement on how to fix them.

I bet you good money we will see tanks changed in their use again in the next edition as they had this current edition. I just don't think GW has the mentality to make the changes needed to the over all system and the nuances to tackle this issue. As it currently stands changing things on the fly as they are currently doing ends up going back and forth but really doesn't end up making vehicles much better along the way.

Leaving the only real positive changes being at least we got rid of hull points which was such a half effort it felt pretty lazy on their part.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/24 22:27:43


 
   
Made in gb
Executing Exarch






Spoiler:
 AngryAngel80 wrote:
I think the length and round and rounds in this very thread is why we don't have tanks actually really improving ever. If we can assume that these same talks happen in GW, which unless we think they are totally brain dead we have to assume they have, there isn't real agreement on how to fix them.

I bet you good money we will see tanks changed in their use again in the next edition as they had this current edition. I just don't think GW has the mentality to make the changes needed to the over all system and the nuances to tackle this issue. As it currently stands changing things on the fly as they are currently doing ends up going back and forth but really doesn't end up making vehicles much better along the way.

Leaving the only real positive changes being at least we got rid of hull points which was such a half effort it felt pretty lazy on their part.


Fly made vehicles very good in 8th though.

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
Tunneling Trygon




Mexico

I expect that some tanks will get better. Namely IG ones because they are like half of the IG army and without them the faction doesn't work.

I hold the same hope for nid monsters.
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

 Tyran wrote:
I hold the same hope for nid monsters.
Hope is the first step, etc. etc. etc.

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

 
   
Made in es
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain




Vigo. Spain.

I mean they did a good job with FW tyranid monsters. If they do the same for the codex ones...

 Crimson Devil wrote:

Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.

ERJAK wrote:
Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.

 
   
Made in us
Roarin' Runtherd




To continue in regards to monsters, it is shocking at how low their damage output is, Tyranids really suffer from being an early 8th edition codex that never really got the same comprehensive updates others got. There is also a strange focus on our monsters being primarily anti elite in melee, as outside of the forgeworld Bugs, we don't have much in the way of heavy melee. I still recall the days of Strength 9 Carnifexes and now compared to other Dreadnought type models, for their cost they lack the punching power of Imperial counterparts, without a resultant price drop.

But aside from that, our MCs should be either really durable, and just be Bio tanks, or so cheap that despite their inferiority we can bring them in such mass, that it adds up.
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

Then there's the fact that, for all of this thread's talk of Rhinos, Carnifxes are still less durable, which makes absolutely no sense to me. The first game of 8th where I discovered that my opponent's Rhinos were more capable of shrugging off more damage than my Carnifexes is a memory I'll not soon forget...

 Galas wrote:
I mean they did a good job with FW tyranid monsters. If they do the same for the codex ones...
Did they though? Yes, making the Hierodule an HS slot rather than a LOW was a stroke of genius (now do the same for Macharius and Malcadors, FW!!!), but are they good, or are they good only in comparison to what's already in the Codex? I mean, you still need to use Dermic Symbiosis to get by, and that alone makes me think that it'll either get limited to 0-1 come the new Codex or get turned into a Crusade-only upgrade.

To use a rather crass analogy, a gak sandwich is still a gak sandwich, even if it has less gak in it.


This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/06/25 00:30:40


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

 
   
Made in es
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain




Vigo. Spain.

Na, Tyranid FW monsters are actually good compared with most units in the game. They have made tournament appareances and are units kept out of higher listings because an obsolete codex.

 Crimson Devil wrote:

Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.

ERJAK wrote:
Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.

 
   
Made in hk
Longtime Dakkanaut





panzerfront14 wrote:
Honestly, in regards to the original topic, Tanks should be among the most durable things on the table, and if a Tank is packing a Large caliber weapon, its should be honestly quite difficult for an infantry model to withstand a hit from it. I'd honestly be for switching to a missile launcher type split (which I honestly advocate on other threads in Proposed rules) Issues occur naturally with large single shots being very unreliable. But I think tanks should have a AT/HE shot split available to them, (if they have solid shot weapons). The main gun of a tank should not be comparable to an infantry portable AT gun. To use WW2 as an example, as I often do, the Lascannon type weapons are honestly more akin, and should be, to 37/50mm lighter AT guns, in that they easily maneuverable, infantry portable, but should have issues with killing heavy tanks.

Things like IG's Battle cannons/Vanquisher Cannon, Ork Killkannons, the Gladiator's big Laser Destroyer (and the one on the Repulsor Executioner) the Craftworld Eldar's Fire Prism, the Tau's Railgun and the Tyranid Rupture Cannon should be better at cracking large targets, some more than others as I think that the more multipurpose guns shouldn't be as good as the specialist guns for the purpose. They should be better than their points in lighter guns at cracking things like Land Raiders, Battle Wagons, large monsters and their counterparts.

In order for this to occur, naturally heavy and light AT guns should be nature of cost, or ROF be biased towards other targets. If a Lascannon is a light AT gun and I personally think they are, then they should be relative cheap but should be ineffective against Leman Russ Tanks and their counter parts, as that is IMO a Medium Tank by 40k standards. Naturally I think handing out, higher T Values to tanks, higher strength values to heavy AT guns and higher damage values assigned as such.

To keep with my WW2 analogy, Melta weapons are essentially the counter part too, infantry portable HEAT rockets such as Panzerfausts, Panzershrecks, PIATs, and Bazookas. They should be very effective against tanks, high damage, but short ranged. This is one of the areas where one of the biggest problems of 40k lies, as the shrinking boards makes such short range., high damage guns more effective. The Melta as it exists should by its description in the fluff be for close range infantry defense against tanks. The Multimelta simply being a larger scale variant, similar to the Hungarian tank and tripod mounted AT Rockets which had far greater range and "stopping power" then the infantry counterparts. Imagine how much more potent IG would be if instead of having to cross a 2 foot distance on a 5 foot board, you had to cross a 6 foot distance on a 9 foot board to get to the enemy, specifically on hammer and anvil boards. Range and mobility are major issues which shrinking boards makes less and less relevant. It would be very different if those Eradicators couldn't even get close to enemy tanks without having to endure a few salvos, even from current weapons, then again in such an environment, either the fastest movers, or deepstrikes would simply become the order of the day, but my point is range would be a decisive issue in such an environment.

I'd say that under current conditions, raising the current T value and wounds of tanks. Applying rules that make them more durable than their points in heavy infantry, along with emphasis on the fact that Tanks should rule long range battles, but be very concerned about an enemy infantry squad closing with them. Make their primary weapon either having high output, or being incredibly precise and hard hitting. I'd be in favor of the Vanquisher gaining the stats of the Macharius Vanquisher's cannon (save shot count) and simply hitting on 2s base, in a similar fashion to the Shokk Rifle on my buggies. Yes have them have issues with Invulns, yes have them absolutely slap even a heavy tank if a Heavy Anti Tank gun actually gets past it's defenses. Yes I think T9 is a good starting point for medium tanks like the Russ/Predator, I think T10 for Heavy vehicles like macharius, Malcadors and Land raiders is warrented, along with heavier T values and more wounds for things like monoliths, Baneblades and other massive constructs. 40k Vehicles rather rapidly get to the scale where they're more akin to small naval vessels in terms of internal subdivision once they start increasing in size.


Note: In the event it comes up, I am a primarily Ork and Tyranid player, with a side group of Black Templars as I like the models.


I think the main problem lies with multi meltas. When the board used to be bigger. 24 inches was still ok. Now that the board is smaller, multi meltas are a bit too effective in range given what they do. You don't see people ever complaining about the 12 inch melta guns. Its the multi meltas which are now too good given the smaller board.

I am not sure if lascannon is seen as a light AT gun in warhammer though. Its stats seem to imply it was meant for heavy tank killing. Bear in mind that IG can take tanks in squadrons. Facing 9 T9 Leman Russes which are unkillable by many armies might be a pretty feels bad moment.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/25 02:07:09


 
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

From the sounds of it, the real problem is that you're playing on smaller boards.

Why are you playing on smaller boards?

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




Because GW came out with new "recommendations" which were turned into basically gospel by far too many

 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 hk
Longtime Dakkanaut





 H.B.M.C. wrote:
From the sounds of it, the real problem is that you're playing on smaller boards.

Why are you playing on smaller boards?


GW reduced the size of the boards. Plus the way objectives are placed now and played, its a pretty short distance to reach enemy units who are after midboard objectives.

9th edition is a good thing really. Ranged shooting leaf blower type armies are not autowin in that sense now. You could shoot off your opponent's army and still lose.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/25 02:11:57


 
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

Eldenfirefly wrote:
GW reduced the size of the boards.
Did they though?

I know they set up their minimum/recommended board size stuff, but you are aware that you don't have to do that, right? The tournament scene and mat makers may have all fallen over themselves to be the first to adopt GW's entirely-box-size-driven change to 40k's play surface, but your old 6x4 or whatever is still something you can (and should) play on.

So, again, you're saying MMs are a problem because the board is smaller. Make the board bigger. Nothing is stopping you.

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





Because I like the 9th edition base core ruleset. Its more strategic and tactical. Many different types of units all have a role to play. Some may be overtuned compared to others for their price. But setting aside these, I would still take playing 9th edition over any other editions of 40k I have played so far.
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

You liking the rule set doesn't answer my question. The table size isn't set as part of the rules.

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





 H.B.M.C. wrote:
You liking the rule set doesn't answer my question. The table size isn't set as part of the rules.


It does actually. Because the standard missions which many play and use use the standard table size. And I like the standard mission sets too because they do encourage more strategic play as well. Having a bigger table doesn't make much difference if the objectives you are going to fight over are all in the mid board anyway.
   
Made in ca
Deranged Necron Destroyer






 H.B.M.C. wrote:
You liking the rule set doesn't answer my question. The table size isn't set as part of the rules.


True, I guess it's dependant on the local meta. If your locals are using the minimum sized (because they're competitive focused, and most events use the min sizes), but you're used to 4x4, or 4x6, you'll be at a disadvantage, as the board size incentivizes specific kinds of play, or uses of things like Strategic Reserves, or deep striking.

Girl Gamers are the best! 
   
Made in us
Roarin' Runtherd





I'm not saying that Russes should be unkillable, I think they should be harder to kill, particularly when they're in a shooting fight with infantry that somehow pack more firepower in a squad of five/3 guys then the entire tank.

The reason I view the Lascannon as a light AT weapon is what is compared too, in terms of Railguns, the main gun of a Fire Prism, the Vanquisher Cannon, the Rupture Cannon, and the numerous Laser Destroyer Variants which I view as the heavy AT guns of most armies inventories, in addition it is also manportable as a team, or a "heavy" crew served weapon". Then you have your super heavy AT guns, followed by Anti Titan Weapons. The Slot I struggle with, is medium AT weapons as I don't see many, or perhaps overlook them. Generally I think most of the various multipurpose tank cannons would fall into that, the Battle Cannon, that massive Tau Ion Cannon on their hammerheads, the Kill Kannon and others like them.

On the topic of range, I always prefer to play on larger tables, I got used to it and favor it as the best size for a 2k game.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/06/25 03:10:43


 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: