| 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. |
|
 |
2019/01/23 20:57:54
Subject: Tank melee. WHY DOES IT EXIST?
|
|
Jealous that Horus is Warmaster
|
Vehicle rules overall got a lot worse and boring in 8th ed, in my opinion. I'm very glad 30k is still using 7th ed rules (kinda) so my lovely tanks act like vehicles and not living being.
No melee, just ramming and tank shocking. No shooting from the tip of your track sticking out of the ruins, and proper facing rules. Good stuff.
|
Alpharius? Never heard of him. |
|
|
 |
|
2019/01/23 22:03:38
Subject: Tank melee. WHY DOES IT EXIST?
|
|
Pestilent Plague Marine with Blight Grenade
|
 Hawky wrote:I wish there was a rule, allowing a tank to effectively run over infantry. 3 attacks on 6+ are laughable and utterly useless, rarely achieving anything. IG has a stratagem for that, but that's effective only for Baneblades. On anything smaller it's from situational to useless
My idea is that the tank has 3A with a rule that say "double/triple the number of attacks if the unit you charge has <infantry> keyword. Counts only for the first fight phase."
Even then, 6-9 attacks hitting on 6's won't accomplish an end result any better than a couple marines attacking in CC - which I'm sure everyone would agree is hardly terrifying.
I do agree though that when the attacks hit, they should hurt. Make the attacks -4AP or D3 damage that spills over.
|
"Courage and Honour. I hear you murmur these words in the mist, in their wake I hear your hearts beat harder with false conviction seeking to convince yourselves that a brave death has meaning.
There is no courage to be found here my nephews, no honour to be had. Your souls will join the trillion others in the mist shrieking uselessly to eternity, weeping for the empire you could not save.
To the unfaithful, I bring holy plagues ripe with enlightenment. To the devout, I bring the blessing of immortality through the kiss of sacred rot.
And to you, new-born sons of Gulliman, to you flesh crafted puppets of a failing Imperium I bring the holiest gift of all.... Silence."
- Mortarion, The Death Lord, The Reaper of Men, Daemon Primarch of Nurgle
 5300 |  2800 |  3600 |  1600 | |
|
|
|
|
2019/01/24 00:05:18
Subject: Re:Tank melee. WHY DOES IT EXIST?
|
|
Junior Officer with Laspistol
|
deotrims 16th wrote: Also as regimental standard said sloped armour deflects projectiles into the supporting infantry so that was acknowledged and deliberate.
Surprised no one else caught this, but you don't want to be using Regimental Standard as a source. In short, it's in-universe propaganda which straight up lies to the guardsmen which read it. The whole things is played for ridiculous comedy, not for actual rational explanations about design choices in 40k. Grimtuff's source from WD is the correct answer here.
Also, friendly reminder to proofread your posts before hitting submit. It's not required, but people will be more appreciative of your posts when you do. 
|
Pretre: OOOOHHHHH snap. That's like driving away from hitting a pedestrian.
Pacific:First person to Photoshop a GW store into the streets of Kabul wins the thread.
Selym: "Be true to thyself, play Chaos" - Jesus, Daemon Prince of Cegorach.
H.B.M.C: You can't lobotomise someone twice. |
|
|
|
|
2019/01/24 01:18:44
Subject: Tank melee. WHY DOES IT EXIST?
|
|
Loyal Necron Lychguard
|
I got three words for you OP:
beep beep melon-fether
|
|
|
|
|
2019/01/24 10:33:27
Subject: Re:Tank melee. WHY DOES IT EXIST?
|
|
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
 liquidjoshi wrote:deotrims 16th wrote: Also as regimental standard said sloped armour deflects projectiles into the supporting infantry so that was acknowledged and deliberate.
Surprised no one else caught this, but you don't want to be using Regimental Standard as a source. In short, it's in-universe propaganda which straight up lies to the guardsmen which read it. The whole things is played for ridiculous comedy, not for actual rational explanations about design choices in 40k. Grimtuff's source from WD is the correct answer here.
Also, friendly reminder to proofread your posts before hitting submit. It's not required, but people will be more appreciative of your posts when you do.
Well they're not wrong about the deflecting part, and supporting infantry getting hit is a possible result. It's just not a major, or even minor concern.
|
|
|
|
|
2019/01/24 11:12:28
Subject: Re:Tank melee. WHY DOES IT EXIST?
|
|
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
liquidjoshi wrote:deotrims 16th wrote: Also as regimental standard said sloped armour deflects projectiles into the supporting infantry so that was acknowledged and deliberate.
Surprised no one else caught this, but you don't want to be using Regimental Standard as a source. In short, it's in-universe propaganda which straight up lies to the guardsmen which read it. The whole things is played for ridiculous comedy, not for actual rational explanations about design choices in 40k. Grimtuff's source from WD is the correct answer here.
Also, friendly reminder to proofread your posts before hitting submit. It's not required, but people will be more appreciative of your posts when you do.
I can't believe you are so grumpy on your birthdayguardsman!
|
|
|
|
|
2019/01/24 14:34:59
Subject: Tank melee. WHY DOES IT EXIST?
|
|
Fixture of Dakka
|
When I ram in a Rhino then charge, it feels fun and fluffy, where the Rhino is covering the Tacs charging in behind. It probably won't kill anything, but it'll keep them busy.
When I ram in a Wave Serpent then charge, I feel like I just cheated.
When I ram in a Raider, I feel like it should kill something.
Different vehicles should have different effects. But that adds bloat. So they provided simple rules.
|
|
|
|
|
2019/01/24 20:04:02
Subject: Re:Tank melee. WHY DOES IT EXIST?
|
|
Ultramarine Chaplain with Hate to Spare
|
What's nice is that you wind up with tanks that can disrupt infantry by contacting them, and infantry that can disrupt tanks by contacting them, but unless they have some special equipment neither can really hurt the other.
Less related, but this scene has always stuck with me:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wa4U6TQlNI 70's sci-fi for the win
|
|
|
|
|
|
2019/01/24 21:08:34
Subject: Re:Tank melee. WHY DOES IT EXIST?
|
|
Calculating Commissar
|
Mildly comical version of a serious scene/concept (why don't more of them jump out of the buckets?  ). However, should definitely have stayed away from those Youtube comments in particular.  
|
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/24 21:08:42
 ChargerIIC wrote:If algae farm paste with a little bit of your grandfather in it isn't Grimdark I don't know what is.
|
|
|
|
|
2019/01/24 21:28:29
Subject: Re:Tank melee. WHY DOES IT EXIST?
|
|
Ultramarine Chaplain with Hate to Spare
|
Haha. As a general rule I find it's wise to stay away from youtube comments.
The clip is definitely a bit hokey, but man is the concept brutally grim-dark. Imagine a "for-realsies" version of that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
