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 gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






Add a damage reduction mechanic to vehicles which makes heavy weapons necessary to crack them. Bake it into the reducing profiles so damaged vehicles take more damage - crack them with anti-tank, finish them with smaller weapons.

So an ork trukk might be damage reduction of 1/1/0. A leman russ might be 3/D3/1. A titan might be 4/3/2.

Then up the average damage on weapons. Make a lascannon damage 6, or 2D3. Make a meltagun 2D6 in melta range. These things should damage vehicles well and obliterate infantry.

Then you can stop the creep of toughness as a T6 landraider would still be immune to anything with a damage less than 4 anyway.


Alternatively bake an Ork Trukk's "Ramshackle" into a "Heavy Armour Save", where passing the save reduces incoming damage to 1. Then drop the wounds on vehicles across the board.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/11 12:45:34


12,300 points of Orks
9th W/D/L with Orks, 4/0/2
I am Thoruk, the Barbarian, Slayer of Ducks, and This is my blog!

I'm Selling Infinity, 40k, dystopian wars, UK based!

I also make designs for t-shirts and mugs and such on Redbubble! 
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran



London

 Sledgehammer wrote:
And you think making aircraft suceptible to being destroyed by any boy who happens to be wearing a jetpack is a positive play experience? Stormboys should not be a viable anti air option, just as a lasgun shouldn't be able to be an anti tank Weapon. Ohh but Mkoll turned his lagun into a krak grenade!!!! Yeah no thanks.


For one they aren't proper fliers. A supersonic aircraft would be a blip on the game board for a few seconds as it passed overhead. You want aircraft travelling around the board? Ok those are skimmers. The idea of jump packs reaching them isn't too far fetched. I will take your ideas of what can affect fliers if you accept my flak ranges and the amount of time you are a threat over the table.

If you want 'realistic' armour, aircraft and infantry (heavy and light), you would need to play a different game. And even then the results wouldn't be what you think they would be. If you haven't seen a tank rout because the crew got scared, you wouldn't accept the idea that infantry with weapons of a minimal threat to tanks could make them run.

I prefer the old lower damage, lower defence, lower model count approach. GW wants high model counts for sale so that means high damage dealing to finish games, which means more defence for many units.
   
Made in cz
Regular Dakkanaut




+1T to most vehicles/monsters (ideally)

And then a universal Vehicles/Monsters rule:

+1 to armor save against attacks with a strength characteristic same or lesser than the model's toughness.

That would be a significant durability buff against light and medium weapons for most vehicles and monsters.

The anti-tank weapons would be unaffected against light and medium vehicles/MCs and somewhat weakened against the heavy-weights.
   
Made in fr
Longtime Dakkanaut






Kitane wrote:
+1T to most vehicles/monsters (ideally)

And then a universal Vehicles/Monsters rule:

+1 to armor save against attacks with a strength characteristic same or lesser than the model's toughness.

That would be a significant durability buff against light and medium weapons for most vehicles and monsters.

The anti-tank weapons would be unaffected against light and medium vehicles/MCs and somewhat weakened against the heavy-weights.


i had my own idea, but i like yours too.

I might change yours to reduce the Ap of weapons firing at a vehicle unless their Str was at least equal to the T of the vehicle/monster. Kinda like wound rolls, the lower the strength, the higher the -AP.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/11 13:04:39


"But the universe is a big place, and whatever happens, you will not be missed..." 
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran



London

So we all agree - back to 2nd ed and rolling penetration for shooting tanks

You could actually implement this is a straightforward way.

Tanks become one of two types - heavy, they have an armour value - and light, they have a toughness value.

So a sentinel stays the same (its a light vehicle), a Chimera becomes Armour value 10, a Leman Russ Armour Value 12, wounds and save are whatever.

Weapons end up with a changed stat line
Lasgun Range 24", Rapid 1, Str 3, AP -, Dmg 1
New stat - Anti Tank (AT) 4+D3
Lascannon Range 48", Heavy 1, Str 9, AP -3, Dmg D6
New stat - Anti Tank (AT) 10+D6
Boltgun Range 24", Rapid 1, Str 4, AP -, Dmg 1
New stat - Anti Tank (AT) 5+D6

After hitting the tank to wound it you have to roll over its penetration. A lasgun will only harm lightly armoured stuff, a bolter gun can threaten stuff like Chimer and Rhinos, but is useless against a tank, a lascannon almost auto penetrates something like a transport. Sv and wounds as normal.

That would result in armies needing dedicated AT weapons again rather than general purpose killers.

Orrrrr

We just go back to 1st Ed weapon profiles and massively up wound counts.

Who wants 2D6 damage AP-6 lascannon and 4D6 damage AP-4 2" blast multimalta?

For reference a Land raiders stats were below but note the 50 damage points those lascannon had to knock off.

[Thumb - LR.png]

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/11 13:43:15


 
   
Made in pl
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Blackie wrote:
No, because today it's too easy to spam anti tank weapons. If we were in editions like 3rd-5th when a standard list had something like 6-7 anti tank shot in total (with harsh maluses on platforms if they moved) ok, but right now we have an extremely high rate of fire for anything, including high S high AP high D weapons, plus tools to enhance them.

I am not sure what 3rd-5th edition you played, because fire dragons, meltacide, quad fusion tau, twin mm land speeders (and tau fusion equivalent), lasplasback spam, BT minmax, and a lot of similar stuff were a thing and you could easily build a list just as deadly as current ones, the only difference was less netlisting and WAAAC types blaring loudly which unit is OP and should be spammed so the problem was less visible. Hell, 10 sternguard with combi weapons in drop pod could output more melta shots from DS than any unit costing similar points now can...

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Today I learned "immersion" isn't important in game design.

As a game designer, this is news to me. I will have great news for the office when I get back.

Seeing vast majority of 'muh immersion' is dumb whining stuff is no longer like it used be in 7th, garbage edition, yeah, it's best ignored by any competent game designer. Especially seeing new design is in 99% of cases vastly better across the board.

To give one particularly stupid example, blasts - the fact they now finally do something to tanks and MC really improved it. If anything, you could argue blasts should deal full hits to these targets to be 100% realistic, as they absorb much bigger portion of the explosion than infantry sized target does (and even a full horde will only barely match surface area of these targets). Old '1 hit' was comically stupid and unrealistic, HE shell from earthshaker should blast that tyranid monster to bits (or blow turret clean off Russ), not give them a scratch

Or you know, another favorite dumb whine target, facings. I am in front of the tank, and can see the side just fine, but since front glacis is hidden behind a small wall, the whole tank is suddenly untargetable? WTF?? Let's imagine tank backs up a bit and I can see the front now, but weaker side is still in range - why the hell my gun has magnet in it forcing to target strongest area? WTF?? But there is this space marine with power fist next to me who walks up to the tank and pokes the front plate - suddenly his fists teleports to the back of the tank ripping a hole there that magically causes the main gun (which is in front and above height the marine can reach) to bend - which of this idiocy is ""immersive"", exactly?

 Jidmah wrote:
Outside of that, it's hilarious how this thread is overrun with people that are trying to fix 9th who have admitted on other threads of neither liking nor playing 9th.
You can basically ignore all posts of anyone bringing up that "flamer vs fliers" debate. Flamers suck at damaging fliers and fliers can easily stay out of their range because they are super fast. Claiming that this is a problem is essentially admitting that you have no clue about how the game works whatsoever and that you should not be participating in this debate.

This. This. So much this. Whining about flamers is pretty much 200% sign of 'I am still b-hurt they dared to change stuff for the better and never played one game of 8th' or 'I lack critical thinking to the point I still parrot 4chan troll strawposts from six years ago'
   
Made in fr
Longtime Dakkanaut






JFTR I sure as hell prefer 9e to 8e simply because as a necron player i didn't feel like it was my turn in the barrel so much in 9e. (I still have to use a rhoid pillow to sit in a chair after 8e...)

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/06/11 13:48:51


"But the universe is a big place, and whatever happens, you will not be missed..." 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







 Irbis wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Today I learned "immersion" isn't important in game design.

As a game designer, this is news to me. I will have great news for the office when I get back.

Seeing vast majority of 'muh immersion' is dumb whining stuff is no longer like it used be in 7th, garbage edition, yeah, it's best ignored by any competent game designer. Especially seeing new design is in 99% of cases vastly better across the board.

To give one particularly stupid example, blasts - the fact they now finally do something to tanks and MC really improved it. If anything, you could argue blasts should deal full hits to these targets to be 100% realistic, as they absorb much bigger portion of the explosion than infantry sized target does (and even a full horde will only barely match surface area of these targets). Old '1 hit' was comically stupid and unrealistic, HE shell from earthshaker should blast that tyranid monster to bits (or blow turret clean off Russ), not give them a scratch

Agreed, which is why it was better in the editions before 7th when tanks had different ammunition types - armor piercing shells were one of my favorite doctrine upgrades for my Leman Russ tanks. Oh, and would you look at that, being able to switch ammunition types instead of firing HE at enemy heavy armor. I guess that's too immersive.

 Irbis wrote:
Or you know, another favorite dumb whine target, facings. I am in front of the tank, and can see the side just fine, but since front glacis is hidden behind a small wall, the whole tank is suddenly untargetable? WTF?? Let's imagine tank backs up a bit and I can see the front now, but weaker side is still in range - why the hell my gun has magnet in it forcing to target strongest area? WTF?? But there is this space marine with power fist next to me who walks up to the tank and pokes the front plate - suddenly his fists teleports to the back of the tank ripping a hole there that magically causes the main gun (which is in front and above height the marine can reach) to bend - which of this idiocy is ""immersive"", exactly?

So you've got your rules wrong and you don't understand your abstractions - I suppose if you deliberately go out of your way to be wrong, and then try your hardest to misunderstand what the designers STATED their intent was, you'd have a bad time with ANY wargame.

1) Obscured glacis plate + visible side = 3+ cover save, not invisible, in the core rules. This is pretty "realistic" (as realistic as anything goes in a wargame) because in this case the deflection angle to the side armor is likely pretty high. Look up "sidescraping" in a tank-sim video game and you'll see why this makes sense. Hiding your glacis and only showing your side at a steep angle is a damn good way to dramatically increase the effectiveness of your tank's armor against targets to your front.

2) Because with the way sides were designed in the game, your gun has a high deflection angle on the side armor. This sloping actually probably makes it TOUGHER than the front armor (ref: "sidescraping" again), but only making it equal seems fair. Remember, shells have a chance to ricochet (failing to bite) as well as a chance to fail to penetrate (biting, but failing to actually perforate fully through the armor). Dramatically increasing the angle of relatively thin armor can increase the ricochet chance because of the shaping of armor-piercing shells - their ability to "bite" into armor at a steep angle is low, because it requires phalanges on the edge of the shell that would make it harder to perforate in a flat impact. High-calibre guns, however, have larger phalanges, meaning they "bite" at steeper and steeper angles (or into thinner and thinner armor) which is where the concept of overmatch comes from - eventually, the calibre of the shell is large enough that it can bite into thin armor even at extreme angles.

I think that using the Front Armor rather than the extreme deflection shot on side armor is a fantastic abstraction without huge amounts of detail on this point.

3) The close-combat-hitting-rear was:
a) not present in my favorite edition (4th)
and
b) when it was present, it was explicitly stated by the designers to represent the user climbing to weaker spots of the tank (e.g. on top), something the model physically couldn't do. This was an abstraction I could live with, even though I preferred the 4th edition system.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/11 14:06:05


 
   
Made in us
Powerful Pegasus Knight





The_Real_Chris wrote:
 Sledgehammer wrote:
And you think making aircraft suceptible to being destroyed by any boy who happens to be wearing a jetpack is a positive play experience? Stormboys should not be a viable anti air option, just as a lasgun shouldn't be able to be an anti tank Weapon. Ohh but Mkoll turned his lagun into a krak grenade!!!! Yeah no thanks.


For one they aren't proper fliers. A supersonic aircraft would be a blip on the game board for a few seconds as it passed overhead. You want aircraft travelling around the board? Ok those are skimmers. The idea of jump packs reaching them isn't too far fetched. I will take your ideas of what can affect fliers if you accept my flak ranges and the amount of time you are a threat over the table.

If you want 'realistic' armour, aircraft and infantry (heavy and light), you would need to play a different game. And even then the results wouldn't be what you think they would be. If you haven't seen a tank rout because the crew got scared, you wouldn't accept the idea that infantry with weapons of a minimal threat to tanks could make them run.

I prefer the old lower damage, lower defence, lower model count approach. GW wants high model counts for sale so that means high damage dealing to finish games, which means more defence for many units.
I'm not asking for proper ranges, nor am I asking for a simulationist game. I'm asking for aircraft and vehicles to at least feel lile aircraft and tanks.

People are in here literally advocating for boys to able to assault flying vehicles, and for flame throwers to shoot down aircraft. These fundamentally change the way that aircraft are operated and used on the table in a negative way. The fact that aircraft have to worry about where they are on the table in association with those two units AT ALL is antithetical to aircraft behaving as aircraft. Bring your own aircraft, or bring anti aircraft if you want to fight against flyers. Don't come to me and tell me an assault unit should be swatting aircraft out of the sky.

I'd much prefer they bring back 7th edition aircraft, keep the current wound system and cap the negative modifiers to -2.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/11 14:12:37


 
   
Made in us
Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon





For one thing, this isn't old 40K where one or two tanks were on the table. Now, GW wants you to have multiple tanks on the table (more money), so only being able to kill 1 a turn would make people spam vehicles more (the points are certainly there) and so we would be having the opposite discussion here.

Honestly, I don't think we need to change much, the meta will probably do it all for us. Sure, right now, lots of melta and dark lances. But after orks get released, I have a feeling some weapon options for players will need to change. We were all talking about how 8th was a horde meta and that early 9th was all about elite tough units (no blast effects, etc). Well, a MM/DL is just as good plinking a 4W elite as a tank and is still a solid trade off for points efficiency. Now use it vs 30+ T5 orks.

let's come back to this discussion in a few months (after sisters, admech and orks are on the table) and see if we are still in the same place.

As for fliers, I'm trying to figure out why they are considered so poor this edition? Outside of -2 to hit (which not all fliers could get, only a minority), not much has changed really.
   
Made in mx
Tunneling Trygon




Mexico

The problem with immersion rules is that I could redesign the entire game for the sake of immersion, starting with the fight phase (starting with the inability to shoot into melee, a terminator hugging a guardsmen shouldn't stop me from firing a lascannon at him), the game was always full of things that didn't make much sense, long before 8th. Moreover what one person find immersion breaking, other find cool. See jump infantry assaulting aircraft above, which I personally find cool as hell but Sledgehammer finds immersion breaking.

As for armor facing, the system basically stopped working once you got to non box vehicles. I could support a simplified front/back system, but not the mess that was back then when I had a small discussion to determine where the "back" angle of a Knight started. And the AV system made balancing monsters vs vehicles impossible (and remember when GW forgot to give rules to flying monsters and had to be completely FAQ them into the 6th edition rulebook?). In 5th monsters sucked and vehicles were king, in 6th vehicles sucked and monsters dominated (and in 7th both sucked). Whatever fix vehicles receive, so should monsters as they are in the same situation, and because of that I dislike the AV system.







This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/06/11 14:36:50


 
   
Made in us
Blessed Living Saint




On the Internet

 bullyboy wrote:
For one thing, this isn't old 40K where one or two tanks were on the table. Now, GW wants you to have multiple tanks on the table (more money), so only being able to kill 1 a turn would make people spam vehicles more (the points are certainly there) and so we would be having the opposite discussion here.

Honestly, I don't think we need to change much, the meta will probably do it all for us. Sure, right now, lots of melta and dark lances. But after orks get released, I have a feeling some weapon options for players will need to change. We were all talking about how 8th was a horde meta and that early 9th was all about elite tough units (no blast effects, etc). Well, a MM/DL is just as good plinking a 4W elite as a tank and is still a solid trade off for points efficiency. Now use it vs 30+ T5 orks.

let's come back to this discussion in a few months (after sisters, admech and orks are on the table) and see if we are still in the same place.

As for fliers, I'm trying to figure out why they are considered so poor this edition? Outside of -2 to hit (which not all fliers could get, only a minority), not much has changed really.

Points for the tanks should be lower if they're supposed to be spammed.
   
Made in de
Contagious Dreadnought of Nurgle




Well, which old Edition are you referring to, bullyboy? I wasn't around at that time but "parking lots" seem to have been a thing since at least 5th or 4th edition.

Tanks always seem to be hard to get right. I mean for me who started in 6th they're the toughest they've ever been right now, but I get it that some feel squishy because of the firepower around or because of Ap-2 bolters that are actually dangerous (at the same time people who still whine because lasguns may kill a Land Raider should actually start playing the game and realize that's a nonsense claim).
   
Made in us
Powerful Pegasus Knight





 Tyran wrote:
The problem with immersion rules is that I could redesign the entire game for the sake of immersion, starting with the fight phase (starting with the inability to shoot into melee, a terminator hugging a guardsmen shouldn't stop me from firing a lascannon at him).

As for armor facing, the system basically stopped working once you got to non box vehicles. I could support a simplified front/back system, but not the mess that was back then.
And lastly, the AV system made balancing monsters vs vehicles impossible (and remember when GW forgot to give rules to flying monsters and had to be completely FAQ them into the 6th edition rulebook?)

In 5th monsters sucked and vehicles were king, in 6th vehicles sucked and monsters dominated (and in 7th both sucked). Whatever fix vehicles receive, so should monsters as they are in the same situation, and because of that I dislike the AV system.

EDIT: Also what one person find immersion breaking, other find cool. See jump infantry assaulting aircraft above, which I personally find cool as hell but Sledgehammer finds immersion breaking.






I don't think you should design the entire game around immersion, because at that point it becomes a simulation rather than an immersive experience. Getting bogged down in the details makes it harder for people to learn and play the game quickly. However you can often achieve a great deal of success in immersing your player without having to do so.

You could theoretically help with facing by requiring vehicles to be on a square base, but that is going to ludicrous in practice and bring in more problems than it solves. A rear armor facing value, or alternatively just a damage increase when in the rear, could quickly replicate the lighter armor in the rear. The problem is again determining the facing.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/06/11 14:47:29


 
   
Made in mx
Tunneling Trygon




Mexico

 Sledgehammer wrote:

I don't think you should design the entire game around immersion, because at that point it becomes a simulation rather than an immersive experience. Getting bogged down in the details makes it harder for people to learn and play the game quickly. However you can often achieve a great deal of success in immersing your player without having to do so.

You could theoretically help with facing by requiring vehicles to be on a square base, but that is going to ludicrous in practice and bring in more problems than it solves. A rear armor facing value, or alternatively just a damage increase when in the rear, could quickly replicate the lighter armor in the rear. The problem is again determining the facing.


The easiest way is an imaginary line horizontal to the front to the vehicle/monster. Whatever is in front of that line shoots at the front, whatever is behind shoots at the rear.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/11 14:43:37


 
   
Made in us
Powerful Pegasus Knight





 Tyran wrote:
 Sledgehammer wrote:

I don't think you should design the entire game around immersion, because at that point it becomes a simulation rather than an immersive experience. Getting bogged down in the details makes it harder for people to learn and play the game quickly. However you can often achieve a great deal of success in immersing your player without having to do so.

You could theoretically help with facing by requiring vehicles to be on a square base, but that is going to ludicrous in practice and bring in more problems than it solves. A rear armor facing value, or alternatively just a damage increase when in the rear, could quickly replicate the lighter armor in the rear. The problem is again determining the facing.


The easiest way is an imaginary line horizontal to the front to the vehicle/monster. Whatever is in front of that line shoots at the front, whatever is behind shoots at the rear.

Epic armageddon achieves this by determining whether or not you have flanked a unit. If you can draw a straight line of 45cm between your unit, the enemy unit, and another friendly unit then you get to subtract 1 from the enemy's armor save. Some vehicles have thick rear armor and ignore this like the land raider.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/11 14:48:28


 
   
Made in us
Daemonic Dreadnought




The dark hollows of Kentucky

 ClockworkZion wrote:
 bullyboy wrote:
For one thing, this isn't old 40K where one or two tanks were on the table. Now, GW wants you to have multiple tanks on the table (more money), so only being able to kill 1 a turn would make people spam vehicles more (the points are certainly there) and so we would be having the opposite discussion here.

Honestly, I don't think we need to change much, the meta will probably do it all for us. Sure, right now, lots of melta and dark lances. But after orks get released, I have a feeling some weapon options for players will need to change. We were all talking about how 8th was a horde meta and that early 9th was all about elite tough units (no blast effects, etc). Well, a MM/DL is just as good plinking a 4W elite as a tank and is still a solid trade off for points efficiency. Now use it vs 30+ T5 orks.

let's come back to this discussion in a few months (after sisters, admech and orks are on the table) and see if we are still in the same place.

As for fliers, I'm trying to figure out why they are considered so poor this edition? Outside of -2 to hit (which not all fliers could get, only a minority), not much has changed really.

Points for the tanks should be lower if they're supposed to be spammed.

No kidding. Also we need more HS slots, or more tanks need to come in squadrons. I don't think gw expects anyone to spam Land Raiders.
   
Made in us
Dive-Bombin' Fighta-Bomba Pilot






 Sledgehammer wrote:
The_Real_Chris wrote:
 Sledgehammer wrote:
And you think making aircraft suceptible to being destroyed by any boy who happens to be wearing a jetpack is a positive play experience? Stormboys should not be a viable anti air option, just as a lasgun shouldn't be able to be an anti tank Weapon. Ohh but Mkoll turned his lagun into a krak grenade!!!! Yeah no thanks.


For one they aren't proper fliers. A supersonic aircraft would be a blip on the game board for a few seconds as it passed overhead. You want aircraft travelling around the board? Ok those are skimmers. The idea of jump packs reaching them isn't too far fetched. I will take your ideas of what can affect fliers if you accept my flak ranges and the amount of time you are a threat over the table.

If you want 'realistic' armour, aircraft and infantry (heavy and light), you would need to play a different game. And even then the results wouldn't be what you think they would be. If you haven't seen a tank rout because the crew got scared, you wouldn't accept the idea that infantry with weapons of a minimal threat to tanks could make them run.

I prefer the old lower damage, lower defence, lower model count approach. GW wants high model counts for sale so that means high damage dealing to finish games, which means more defence for many units.
I'm not asking for proper ranges, nor am I asking for a simulationist game. I'm asking for aircraft and vehicles to at least feel lile aircraft and tanks.

People are in here literally advocating for boys to able to assault flying vehicles, and for flame throwers to shoot down aircraft. These fundamentally change the way that aircraft are operated and used on the table in a negative way. The fact that aircraft have to worry about where they are on the table in association with those two units AT ALL is antithetical to aircraft behaving as aircraft. Bring your own aircraft, or bring anti aircraft if you want to fight against flyers. Don't come to me and tell me an assault unit should be swatting aircraft out of the sky.

I'd much prefer they bring back 7th edition aircraft, keep the current wound system and cap the negative modifiers to -2.



honestly an ork boy or space marine turning off any and all saftey measure (in the space marine case, the orks would never imagine such safeguards) to launch in and swing a power klaw or power fist at a vehicle is about the coolest most 40k thing i can think of. I would be down for to hit penalties but its the mental image of... "sir there is a group of orks on the wing hitting it with axes" or an ork just flying up with a big choppa taking a huge babe ruth swing to attempt to cleave off a wing, misjudge the timing and just get chopped in a jet engine is equally hilarious

10000 points 7000
6000
5000
5000
2000
 
   
Made in us
Powerful Pegasus Knight





 G00fySmiley wrote:
 Sledgehammer wrote:
The_Real_Chris wrote:
 Sledgehammer wrote:
And you think making aircraft suceptible to being destroyed by any boy who happens to be wearing a jetpack is a positive play experience? Stormboys should not be a viable anti air option, just as a lasgun shouldn't be able to be an anti tank Weapon. Ohh but Mkoll turned his lagun into a krak grenade!!!! Yeah no thanks.


For one they aren't proper fliers. A supersonic aircraft would be a blip on the game board for a few seconds as it passed overhead. You want aircraft travelling around the board? Ok those are skimmers. The idea of jump packs reaching them isn't too far fetched. I will take your ideas of what can affect fliers if you accept my flak ranges and the amount of time you are a threat over the table.

If you want 'realistic' armour, aircraft and infantry (heavy and light), you would need to play a different game. And even then the results wouldn't be what you think they would be. If you haven't seen a tank rout because the crew got scared, you wouldn't accept the idea that infantry with weapons of a minimal threat to tanks could make them run.

I prefer the old lower damage, lower defence, lower model count approach. GW wants high model counts for sale so that means high damage dealing to finish games, which means more defence for many units.
I'm not asking for proper ranges, nor am I asking for a simulationist game. I'm asking for aircraft and vehicles to at least feel lile aircraft and tanks.

People are in here literally advocating for boys to able to assault flying vehicles, and for flame throwers to shoot down aircraft. These fundamentally change the way that aircraft are operated and used on the table in a negative way. The fact that aircraft have to worry about where they are on the table in association with those two units AT ALL is antithetical to aircraft behaving as aircraft. Bring your own aircraft, or bring anti aircraft if you want to fight against flyers. Don't come to me and tell me an assault unit should be swatting aircraft out of the sky.

I'd much prefer they bring back 7th edition aircraft, keep the current wound system and cap the negative modifiers to -2.



honestly an ork boy or space marine turning off any and all saftey measure (in the space marine case, the orks would never imagine such safeguards) to launch in and swing a power klaw or power fist at a vehicle is about the coolest most 40k thing i can think of. I would be down for to hit penalties but its the mental image of... "sir there is a group of orks on the wing hitting it with axes" or an ork just flying up with a big choppa taking a huge babe ruth swing to attempt to cleave off a wing, misjudge the timing and just get chopped in a jet engine is equally hilarious
Is that a role that an assault unit should fill or be effective at? Why would I take an AA gun if I can take powerful assault squads that can destroy aircraft, tanks, and infantry in melee all the whilst having large potential threat ranges?
   
Made in us
Tunneling Trygon




Mexico

Well there are all melee armies, not everyone has AA guns.
   
Made in us
Powerful Pegasus Knight





 Tyran wrote:
Well there are all melee armies, not everyone has AA guns.
That doesn't mean we should be advocating for units to fulfill all of these roles at once. Nor are the Tyranids an entirely melee army. You shouldn't try to change the entire paradigm of unit interactions over a single codex. Gw should have given tyranids an AA weapon by now as well, but we know they're not the biggest fans of the nids.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/11 15:22:26


 
   
Made in us
Tunneling Trygon




Mexico

I was thinking about Daemons. Moreover we are talking about jump melee units, not all melee units.
   
Made in us
Dive-Bombin' Fighta-Bomba Pilot






 Sledgehammer wrote:
 G00fySmiley wrote:
 Sledgehammer wrote:
The_Real_Chris wrote:
 Sledgehammer wrote:
And you think making aircraft suceptible to being destroyed by any boy who happens to be wearing a jetpack is a positive play experience? Stormboys should not be a viable anti air option, just as a lasgun shouldn't be able to be an anti tank Weapon. Ohh but Mkoll turned his lagun into a krak grenade!!!! Yeah no thanks.


For one they aren't proper fliers. A supersonic aircraft would be a blip on the game board for a few seconds as it passed overhead. You want aircraft travelling around the board? Ok those are skimmers. The idea of jump packs reaching them isn't too far fetched. I will take your ideas of what can affect fliers if you accept my flak ranges and the amount of time you are a threat over the table.

If you want 'realistic' armour, aircraft and infantry (heavy and light), you would need to play a different game. And even then the results wouldn't be what you think they would be. If you haven't seen a tank rout because the crew got scared, you wouldn't accept the idea that infantry with weapons of a minimal threat to tanks could make them run.

I prefer the old lower damage, lower defence, lower model count approach. GW wants high model counts for sale so that means high damage dealing to finish games, which means more defence for many units.
I'm not asking for proper ranges, nor am I asking for a simulationist game. I'm asking for aircraft and vehicles to at least feel lile aircraft and tanks.

People are in here literally advocating for boys to able to assault flying vehicles, and for flame throwers to shoot down aircraft. These fundamentally change the way that aircraft are operated and used on the table in a negative way. The fact that aircraft have to worry about where they are on the table in association with those two units AT ALL is antithetical to aircraft behaving as aircraft. Bring your own aircraft, or bring anti aircraft if you want to fight against flyers. Don't come to me and tell me an assault unit should be swatting aircraft out of the sky.

I'd much prefer they bring back 7th edition aircraft, keep the current wound system and cap the negative modifiers to -2.



honestly an ork boy or space marine turning off any and all saftey measure (in the space marine case, the orks would never imagine such safeguards) to launch in and swing a power klaw or power fist at a vehicle is about the coolest most 40k thing i can think of. I would be down for to hit penalties but its the mental image of... "sir there is a group of orks on the wing hitting it with axes" or an ork just flying up with a big choppa taking a huge babe ruth swing to attempt to cleave off a wing, misjudge the timing and just get chopped in a jet engine is equally hilarious
Is that a role that an assault unit should fill or be effective at? Why would I take an AA gun if I can take powerful assault squads that can destroy aircraft, tanks, and infantry in melee all the whilst having large potential threat ranges?


AA guns should be an option for some armies sure, but why should it be the only answer? is there a reason a group of Eldar swooping hawks who fly quite fast can't fly alongside a plane and throw some distortion grenades up close at it just because they could have taken an anti aircraft gun elsewhere in the army? because the ork zzap gun exists does that mean that the rokkit boy can't decide to yolo jet pack up to try and hit a plane with a choppa?

10000 points 7000
6000
5000
5000
2000
 
   
Made in us
Powerful Pegasus Knight





 G00fySmiley wrote:
 Sledgehammer wrote:
 G00fySmiley wrote:
 Sledgehammer wrote:
The_Real_Chris wrote:
 Sledgehammer wrote:
And you think making aircraft suceptible to being destroyed by any boy who happens to be wearing a jetpack is a positive play experience? Stormboys should not be a viable anti air option, just as a lasgun shouldn't be able to be an anti tank Weapon. Ohh but Mkoll turned his lagun into a krak grenade!!!! Yeah no thanks.


For one they aren't proper fliers. A supersonic aircraft would be a blip on the game board for a few seconds as it passed overhead. You want aircraft travelling around the board? Ok those are skimmers. The idea of jump packs reaching them isn't too far fetched. I will take your ideas of what can affect fliers if you accept my flak ranges and the amount of time you are a threat over the table.

If you want 'realistic' armour, aircraft and infantry (heavy and light), you would need to play a different game. And even then the results wouldn't be what you think they would be. If you haven't seen a tank rout because the crew got scared, you wouldn't accept the idea that infantry with weapons of a minimal threat to tanks could make them run.

I prefer the old lower damage, lower defence, lower model count approach. GW wants high model counts for sale so that means high damage dealing to finish games, which means more defence for many units.
I'm not asking for proper ranges, nor am I asking for a simulationist game. I'm asking for aircraft and vehicles to at least feel lile aircraft and tanks.

People are in here literally advocating for boys to able to assault flying vehicles, and for flame throwers to shoot down aircraft. These fundamentally change the way that aircraft are operated and used on the table in a negative way. The fact that aircraft have to worry about where they are on the table in association with those two units AT ALL is antithetical to aircraft behaving as aircraft. Bring your own aircraft, or bring anti aircraft if you want to fight against flyers. Don't come to me and tell me an assault unit should be swatting aircraft out of the sky.

I'd much prefer they bring back 7th edition aircraft, keep the current wound system and cap the negative modifiers to -2.



honestly an ork boy or space marine turning off any and all saftey measure (in the space marine case, the orks would never imagine such safeguards) to launch in and swing a power klaw or power fist at a vehicle is about the coolest most 40k thing i can think of. I would be down for to hit penalties but its the mental image of... "sir there is a group of orks on the wing hitting it with axes" or an ork just flying up with a big choppa taking a huge babe ruth swing to attempt to cleave off a wing, misjudge the timing and just get chopped in a jet engine is equally hilarious
Is that a role that an assault unit should fill or be effective at? Why would I take an AA gun if I can take powerful assault squads that can destroy aircraft, tanks, and infantry in melee all the whilst having large potential threat ranges?


AA guns should be an option for some armies sure, but why should it be the only answer? is there a reason a group of Eldar swooping hawks who fly quite fast can't fly alongside a plane and throw some distortion grenades up close at it just because they could have taken an anti aircraft gun elsewhere in the army? because the ork zzap gun exists does that mean that the rokkit boy can't decide to yolo jet pack up to try and hit a plane with a choppa?
Yes because it fundamentally gives those units far too much utility in what they can do and deprives the game of a sense of combined arms. They can ignore terrain, they can very effectively destroy both tanks and infantry, are great at taking objectives, can move at decent speeds (especially on the smaller board sizes now) and now can act as an anti aircraft unit? It's the exact opposite of what you'd want in a game where the tactics should be where and how you use your units. Combined arms is what made 40k tactical. When every unit can damage everything you remove that entire CRITICAL aspect from the game. It also just functionally affects players tactics in a way that reinforces the player to sit back and shoot with their aircraft. I remeber in 8th my Valkyries just hovered all game in my back line because they were penalized for moving and shooting, and would just be charged by jump infantry if I moved them closer. You've functionally created systems that reward aircraft for not acting like aircraft.

Other aircraft / flying monsters and Anti Aircraft weaponry fulfill the role of keeping the skies clear. Jump infantry should not.

This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2021/06/11 15:38:53


 
   
Made in us
Dive-Bombin' Fighta-Bomba Pilot






 Sledgehammer wrote:
 G00fySmiley wrote:
 Sledgehammer wrote:
 G00fySmiley wrote:
 Sledgehammer wrote:
The_Real_Chris wrote:
 Sledgehammer wrote:
And you think making aircraft suceptible to being destroyed by any boy who happens to be wearing a jetpack is a positive play experience? Stormboys should not be a viable anti air option, just as a lasgun shouldn't be able to be an anti tank Weapon. Ohh but Mkoll turned his lagun into a krak grenade!!!! Yeah no thanks.


For one they aren't proper fliers. A supersonic aircraft would be a blip on the game board for a few seconds as it passed overhead. You want aircraft travelling around the board? Ok those are skimmers. The idea of jump packs reaching them isn't too far fetched. I will take your ideas of what can affect fliers if you accept my flak ranges and the amount of time you are a threat over the table.

If you want 'realistic' armour, aircraft and infantry (heavy and light), you would need to play a different game. And even then the results wouldn't be what you think they would be. If you haven't seen a tank rout because the crew got scared, you wouldn't accept the idea that infantry with weapons of a minimal threat to tanks could make them run.

I prefer the old lower damage, lower defence, lower model count approach. GW wants high model counts for sale so that means high damage dealing to finish games, which means more defence for many units.
I'm not asking for proper ranges, nor am I asking for a simulationist game. I'm asking for aircraft and vehicles to at least feel lile aircraft and tanks.

People are in here literally advocating for boys to able to assault flying vehicles, and for flame throwers to shoot down aircraft. These fundamentally change the way that aircraft are operated and used on the table in a negative way. The fact that aircraft have to worry about where they are on the table in association with those two units AT ALL is antithetical to aircraft behaving as aircraft. Bring your own aircraft, or bring anti aircraft if you want to fight against flyers. Don't come to me and tell me an assault unit should be swatting aircraft out of the sky.

I'd much prefer they bring back 7th edition aircraft, keep the current wound system and cap the negative modifiers to -2.



honestly an ork boy or space marine turning off any and all saftey measure (in the space marine case, the orks would never imagine such safeguards) to launch in and swing a power klaw or power fist at a vehicle is about the coolest most 40k thing i can think of. I would be down for to hit penalties but its the mental image of... "sir there is a group of orks on the wing hitting it with axes" or an ork just flying up with a big choppa taking a huge babe ruth swing to attempt to cleave off a wing, misjudge the timing and just get chopped in a jet engine is equally hilarious
Is that a role that an assault unit should fill or be effective at? Why would I take an AA gun if I can take powerful assault squads that can destroy aircraft, tanks, and infantry in melee all the whilst having large potential threat ranges?


AA guns should be an option for some armies sure, but why should it be the only answer? is there a reason a group of Eldar swooping hawks who fly quite fast can't fly alongside a plane and throw some distortion grenades up close at it just because they could have taken an anti aircraft gun elsewhere in the army? because the ork zzap gun exists does that mean that the rokkit boy can't decide to yolo jet pack up to try and hit a plane with a choppa?
Yes because it fundamentally gives those units far too much utility in what they can do and deprives the game of a sense of combined arms. They can ignore terrain, they can very effectively destroy both tanks and infantry, are great at taking objectives, can move at decent speeds (especially on the smaller board sizes now) and now can act as an anti aircraft unit? It's the exact opposite of what you'd want in a game where the tactics should be where and how you use your units. Combined arms is what made 40k tactical. When every unit can damage everything you remove that entire CRITICAL aspect from the game. It also just functionally affects players tactics in a way that reinforces the player to sit back and shoot with their aircraft. I remeber in 8th my Valkyries just hovered all game in my back line because they were penalized for moving and shooting, and would just be charged by jump infantry if I moved them closer. You've functionally created systems that reward aircraft for not acting like aircraft.

Other aircraft / flying monsters and Anti Aircraft weaponry fulfill the role of keeping the skies clear. Jump infantry should not.


for games purposes you bake it into the points. an ork boy is 8 points, and has the same 6+ armor save and statline as a stormboy other than movement. For 12 points (50% increase) you get 12" movement and the ability to assault fliers (also they sometimes blow themselves up in movement).

10000 points 7000
6000
5000
5000
2000
 
   
Made in us
Powerful Pegasus Knight





 G00fySmiley wrote:
 Sledgehammer wrote:
 G00fySmiley wrote:
 Sledgehammer wrote:
 G00fySmiley wrote:
 Sledgehammer wrote:
The_Real_Chris wrote:
 Sledgehammer wrote:
And you think making aircraft suceptible to being destroyed by any boy who happens to be wearing a jetpack is a positive play experience? Stormboys should not be a viable anti air option, just as a lasgun shouldn't be able to be an anti tank Weapon. Ohh but Mkoll turned his lagun into a krak grenade!!!! Yeah no thanks.


For one they aren't proper fliers. A supersonic aircraft would be a blip on the game board for a few seconds as it passed overhead. You want aircraft travelling around the board? Ok those are skimmers. The idea of jump packs reaching them isn't too far fetched. I will take your ideas of what can affect fliers if you accept my flak ranges and the amount of time you are a threat over the table.

If you want 'realistic' armour, aircraft and infantry (heavy and light), you would need to play a different game. And even then the results wouldn't be what you think they would be. If you haven't seen a tank rout because the crew got scared, you wouldn't accept the idea that infantry with weapons of a minimal threat to tanks could make them run.

I prefer the old lower damage, lower defence, lower model count approach. GW wants high model counts for sale so that means high damage dealing to finish games, which means more defence for many units.
I'm not asking for proper ranges, nor am I asking for a simulationist game. I'm asking for aircraft and vehicles to at least feel lile aircraft and tanks.

People are in here literally advocating for boys to able to assault flying vehicles, and for flame throwers to shoot down aircraft. These fundamentally change the way that aircraft are operated and used on the table in a negative way. The fact that aircraft have to worry about where they are on the table in association with those two units AT ALL is antithetical to aircraft behaving as aircraft. Bring your own aircraft, or bring anti aircraft if you want to fight against flyers. Don't come to me and tell me an assault unit should be swatting aircraft out of the sky.

I'd much prefer they bring back 7th edition aircraft, keep the current wound system and cap the negative modifiers to -2.



honestly an ork boy or space marine turning off any and all saftey measure (in the space marine case, the orks would never imagine such safeguards) to launch in and swing a power klaw or power fist at a vehicle is about the coolest most 40k thing i can think of. I would be down for to hit penalties but its the mental image of... "sir there is a group of orks on the wing hitting it with axes" or an ork just flying up with a big choppa taking a huge babe ruth swing to attempt to cleave off a wing, misjudge the timing and just get chopped in a jet engine is equally hilarious
Is that a role that an assault unit should fill or be effective at? Why would I take an AA gun if I can take powerful assault squads that can destroy aircraft, tanks, and infantry in melee all the whilst having large potential threat ranges?


AA guns should be an option for some armies sure, but why should it be the only answer? is there a reason a group of Eldar swooping hawks who fly quite fast can't fly alongside a plane and throw some distortion grenades up close at it just because they could have taken an anti aircraft gun elsewhere in the army? because the ork zzap gun exists does that mean that the rokkit boy can't decide to yolo jet pack up to try and hit a plane with a choppa?
Yes because it fundamentally gives those units far too much utility in what they can do and deprives the game of a sense of combined arms. They can ignore terrain, they can very effectively destroy both tanks and infantry, are great at taking objectives, can move at decent speeds (especially on the smaller board sizes now) and now can act as an anti aircraft unit? It's the exact opposite of what you'd want in a game where the tactics should be where and how you use your units. Combined arms is what made 40k tactical. When every unit can damage everything you remove that entire CRITICAL aspect from the game. It also just functionally affects players tactics in a way that reinforces the player to sit back and shoot with their aircraft. I remeber in 8th my Valkyries just hovered all game in my back line because they were penalized for moving and shooting, and would just be charged by jump infantry if I moved them closer. You've functionally created systems that reward aircraft for not acting like aircraft.

Other aircraft / flying monsters and Anti Aircraft weaponry fulfill the role of keeping the skies clear. Jump infantry should not.


for games purposes you bake it into the points. an ork boy is 8 points, and has the same 6+ armor save and statline as a stormboy other than movement. For 12 points (50% increase) you get 12" movement and the ability to assault fliers (also they sometimes blow themselves up in movement).
Allowing those kind of unit interactions at all creates fundamentally negative play experiences that work in direct opposition to combined arms tactics. This is the current problem with both tanks and aircraft distilled into a single point.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/11 15:56:38


 
   
Made in mx
Tunneling Trygon




Mexico

Except that no everyone utilizes combined arms tactics in 40k. e.g Daemons, and to a lesser extent Custodes.

I think the new Godblight novel even highlights the fact that Daemons use medieval era tactics and formations against tanks, and they somehow work.
   
Made in us
Dive-Bombin' Fighta-Bomba Pilot






allowign those interaction is one of the things i liek most about 40k. clearly what makes it a "fundamentally negative play experiences" to you is quite different for me. from a game perspective i would hate to see the game move into paper rock sissors on lists where if you didn't bring the right counters you have not only a disadvantage but no way to deal with lists.

10000 points 7000
6000
5000
5000
2000
 
   
Made in us
Powerful Pegasus Knight





 Tyran wrote:
Except that no everyone utilizes combined arms tactics in 40k. e.g Daemons, and to a lesser extent Custodes.

I think the new Godblight novel even highlights the fact that Daemons use medieval era tactics and formations against tanks, and they somehow work.
If we're going to start advocating for rules on the tabletop to make entirely melee armies capable of killing anything and everything including fliers and tanks, viable, then I have no interest in 40k. Just move your units across the table top and try to stay behind cover, roll your charge dice and win.

No need to think about how to get your anti tank units into position, just charge! No need to figure out how to get your infantry unit to get a flank on the enemy. Just move them up and charge! Just deep strike, use my stratagems, and army bonuses to get a charge!

The idea of combined arms is to prevent people from bringing solo lists and creates a more dynamic play experience.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/06/11 16:13:46


 
   
Made in us
Blessed Living Saint




On the Internet

I don't get the arguements for jump infantry not being able to assault aircraft. Then again, I rather liked that sequence from Space Marine and thought it fit the universe.

At least we're not in 5th ed where all plames where skimmers and could be assaulted by anyone.
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: