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.

I've been working on this for several months now, and I wanted to share this to see what sort of interest and critique it receives. It started as a straightening up/simplifying of the rule system and evolved far beyond that now.

Unfortunately, as of version .1, I haven't had the chance to playtest it yet to see how well the whole thing works. I'm including the incomplete Codexes I have so far (in a separate post), and will update as I continue to progress on this project.

Note: I've been working on the base rules so much, I haven't had much time to delve into the points yet. My frame of reference is for this game that a single, un-upgrade Marine is correctly costed at 15 pts, and the whole system will be based around that price point.

<EDIT>
Rulebook revised 1/8/2017

CODEXES

These are the initial Codexes I have been working on:

STELLAR MARINES (1/8/2017)
Once the favored fighting force of the Dead Emperor, since the Betrayal these still-loyal mighty soldiers have settled in as warlords over the various dominions of mankind. Their ranks still battle and protect mankind from xenos threats, but they are nearly as prone to infighting over the domains they established as they are to take their fight to the decaying empire's true enemies.

SIDREHAR (1/8/2017)
An ancient race that rose to dominate much of the universe after the Great War, this dying race has retreated to massive ships know as Starworlds that roam the galactic lanes looking for the opportunity to re-establish their ancient empire or simply defend themselves from oblivion.

RHO (1/8/2017)
A relatively new race that has experienced burgeoning growth in the last few centuries. Where much of the human empire has stagnanted and oppresses those it rules, the Rho offer progress, vitality and a greater freedom from oppression than the ancient star-spanning human regime.

PLANETARY GUARD (1/8/2017)
Not all the worlds of the decaying human empire have the luxury of a stellar marine force to protect it from the deprivations of xenos or hostile stellar marine forces. The various planetary guard defend the myriad worlds of the empire from both outside and internal threats - and are often the first force sent in to invade their neighbors when the stellar warlords decide to extend their grasp.

THE DEVOURER (1/8/2017)
From beyond the bounds of the galaxy, these alien locusts have discovered the rich worlds of humanity's galaxy and have begun their feast. Striking with overwhelming force, these bio-genetic abominations strike out to envelope any and all living matter unfortunate enough to end up in their path.

TRAITORS (1/8/2017)
Once, mankind was unified under one Emperor, whose grip extended throughout almost all of the known galaxy. But the Emperor's traitorous brother, Mordred, turned half his legions against the Emperor during the great war known as the Betrayal. Mordred and the Emperor were mortally wounded in their final battle, and the surviving traitors used blasphemous technology to throw open a portal to another dimension - hoping to escape and rule the alternate universe there - but they universe they arrived in was twisted with madness and pain. It is from this alternate universe the twisted forces strike, hoping one day to win the worlds they lost and bring the madness and ruin from their existence to this one.

In the works:

ANUNNAKI
Before mankind ascended to the stars, the Anunnaki ruled them. To win an ancient war, the anunnaki sold their soul, becoming soulless machines whose could only conceive of victory at all costs. In the end they were triumphant - or so they thought. Rebellion and civil war rocked the remnants of their empire until the last remnants locked themselves away in statis to await another great war. As the galaxy descends into chaos following the millenium after the Betrayal, the sleeping legions are awakening once more - and thirsting for conquest.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
A short compilation of the major changes with this rules rewrite:

- Size stat replaces rules like Bulky, Very Bulky, et. al
- Movement stat removes the need for USRs such as Fleet, Run, Battle Focus, etc.
- Defense replaces the Melee combat chart, and also is the number you need to hit with a ranged attack
- Models have facing
- Cover modifies the chance to hit instead of acting as a Armor Save
- Units can be pinned by any attack; it is possible to lay down suppressive fire to forcibly pin enemy troops
- Armor saves are positive bonus; you need a total of 7 or more for the armor to negate a wound. AP applies a penalty to the Armor Save instead of totally negating armor; AP values are +1 (old AP 4), +2 (old AP 3), and +4 (old AP 2)*.
- Vehicles have an Armor Save, in addition to their Resilience value
- Psychic ability is handled by a skill; "Deny the Witch" is now a Psychic Save. TO DO: Price psychic powers
- Resilience replaces Toughness and Vehicle's Armor value. There is no Front/Side/Rear; Side shots are at -1 Resistance, Rear shots at -2 Resistance (Rear shots affects for ALL models)
- Vehicle damage chart is gone. Weapon Destroyed/Immobilized can still occur on a 'To Hit' roll of 6 followed by a 6 (just a 6 only with Precision attacks) and can affect ALL models
- Many Monstrous Creatures changed to Vehicles
- Attacks stat now determines how many ranged, melee and psychic attacks a model makes. Most models only make 1 attack; most vehicles/monstrous creatures make 2 attacks
- Burst replaces Salvo, Rapid Fire. One attack is made, for each point you beat Defense, you hit an additional target (you can't hit the same target more than once)
- Blasts don't have to be centered on a model, but are less likely to scatter if you target a model
- Weapons with a Strength of 7+ deal extra wounds; S7-8 deal 1d3, S9-10 deal 1d6, S11-12 (Destroyer) deal 2d6
- Fearless and ATSKNF has been stripped from all models
- Alternating unit activations by drawing order tokens (ala Bolt Action/Gates of Antares)
- In Assaults, the defender doesn't attack back (see next item, though)
- When Assaulting, an enemy unit that has not activated yet has a CHANCE to react by drawing an order token. If the token belongs to the defending player, they can interrupt the Assault with a normal action. If the defending unit has Braced as an action, it can automatically react to the charge.
- Artillery can fire from off the board (Reserves)
- Flying units can attack enemy Reserves


* This had the nice side affect Terminators could have an Armor save of +6 (equivalent to 1+ in 40K), still fail on a 1 and against AP +4 (AP 2 in 40K), still save on a roll of 5-6, negating the need for an Invulnerable save.

No interest? That's disappointing...

Are there any questions about this version I can answer for folks?

I have been reading through it slowly. Not done yet which is why I haven't commented yet.

If I have any critique at this stage it's that some part of the game have become less complicated (Good!) and others have been become more (Bad :( ).

I am finishing reading through so I can get a full understanding of how the mechanics interact before I get into any details.

But for instance you do a lot of stat comparing (like the current WS vs WS or Str vs T) and to me that mostly amounts to more looking at charts and more time spent referring to books. Personally I feel like the game needs to head in the opposite direction. But I have also seen a lot of people mention that they would rather it go in your direction too. Different levels of complexity. Different stroke for different folks.

I will be glad to get back to you with a more in depth analysis when I have the time.

Thanks, Lance - I'm trying to go for as much simplicity as I can wring out of the system but still be tactical, so if I've made something more complex, let me know so I can try to make it straightforward and simple.

My biggest goal is to try and eliminate as much looking things up during the game as I can. I wanted to get away from charts, using stat vs. stats (such as BS/WS vs. Defense, Strength vs. Resiliance) or a constant number (Armor Save needs a 7, etc.)

I also wanted to try and absolutely eliminate USRs that reference USRs and list out all USRs the unit has without having to look up their gear individually (such as Terminator armor granting Slow & Purposeful and Deep Strike - to put those sort of rules right into the unit entry).

I'm gonna start reading this! I'm looking alternative rules and this sounds very interesting.

I hope to give feedback soon.

Subscribed!

Just to note, I haven't posted the changes to the documents yet, but I was reading Lance's thread and came across the section on movement, and realized I'd given most units that had more than 6" movement too much movement. Until I change the actual documents, movement has been modified as follows (this isn't absolute):

9" --> 8"
12" --> 10"
15"+ --> 12"

Aerial/Flyers still generally move 24", FMC's fly 18".

Neat. Glad reading through my stuff has given you some food for thought. The movement values in my thread are very much in flux based on testing. Right now they seem pretty solid but I have a relatively small test base so far. I am converting armys from my LFGS and that will give me better more rounded data to check on.

Thanks, I should also mention that the discussion on Tyranid Synapse made me realize that my own approach was too complex - and there were a lot of references in that document to things that I'd since changed in the main rules (dropping the Warlord abilities and changing psychic powers mainly), so I'm starting to go through that document and straightening that as well.

As for Synapse, I changed it from granting +2 Ld, Fearless, Stubborn and +1 WS & +1 BS to just granting Fearless and Stubborn. But that means I also had to go back through and tweak the WS & BS of all the units. Hopefully I'll have the new devourer document up before the end of the weekend.

I have had a skim through, and it just looks like 40k rules with a few changes.

It has addressed some obvious areas of concern in obvious ways,(as have been done previously several times over the last few years.)

The presentation is good and there are some good ideas there.

And there are areas of concern for me ,that have not been addressed at all.

Can you tell me what you are trying to achieve, so I can see if I can tailor my suggestions to suit your project goals?

Thanks for taking the time to look things over, Lanrak.

Overall, I'm trying to streamline and simplify the game where possible.

I'm hoping to standardize the dice rolling to avoid consulting charts and make it "rolling high is always good".

Looking to simplify and remove redundant USR's (especially ones that are slight variants of basically same rule). Any options that remain should be significant and worth considering. As much as possible, looking at a unit entry should tell you every single USR you have; you shouldn't have to hunt through the BRB, the shooting phase, codex equipment, army special rules and a half-dozen other places to know what a unit does (for example, in the current game, try to find out where Terminators get their Deep Strike ability).

Also, attempting to reduce the number of dice being thrown - lately, new weapons have been giving gobs and gobs of dice; wanted to reduce things so a given unit would roll 2 attacks at best, but yet vehicles/large creatures rolling only 2 dice could still be worthwhile against units rolling 10-20 dice.

Also, I really dislike the IGOUGO system for various reasons and wanted to make turns more interactive, without long spans where one player isn't doing something interesting.

Another thing that needed to die was Randumb. Army construction is entirely paying for you want; no random Warlord traits, no random psychic powers, no random "this is the ability you get for the battle".

Finally, trying to bring the game's overall power level down a notch - 40K seems to have been attempting to amp the game up to 11, trying to dial it back down to, say, a 6 for power level.

Perhaps its all a bit too ambitious to attempt all of this at once, but the game has so many moving parts you can't touch one area without it spilling into another.

The big thing - simplify the game, and make it balanced.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
A quick note - I've reworked a large portion of the Devourer codex rules. Points have not been reworked yet, however.

@Stormonu.
I am going to assume you want to streamline the rules , and remove pointless complication from them.
While at the same time improving the complexity of the game play by adding tactical depth.

Standardizing the rolling convention to roll a D6 and rolling high is good , and reducing the number of dice rolled is also something I can get behind.

Similarly using a more interactive game turn, removing 'pointless randumness' and reducing the need for so many exceptions to rules are all good things to focus on in this new game development.

Here are some questions for you.

Have you considered what type of warfare you want to model the game play on?(This helps keep you focused and not wander all over the place like GW have with 40ks game development.)

Do you think including a simple suppression mechanic , would allow the power level to be adjusted down to more manageable levels by using more tactical options?

How do you intend to address the imbalance between shooting and assault?

Why do you think psychic powers need to be treated as a separate to the core game?

Do you want the rules to be written for the size of the minatures ,(detailed model focused skirmish,)or the number of minatures on the table.(Unit focused battle game.)

Also what game size do you prefer, 7th ed , 4th 5th ed, or 2nd ed?

The current rules for 40k have had 18 years worth of shoddy game design and poor game development enforced on it by GW sales department.

However at its core there is the potential for an absolute diamond of a game play experience.
I am happy to help you chip away at the layer upon layer of Gak to try to reveal it .

Lanrak wrote:


Here are some questions for you.

Have you considered what type of warfare you want to model the game play on?(This helps keep you focused and not wander all over the place like GW have with 40ks game development.)

I'm not sure what you are asking here, so this might not be the answer you are looking for - I'm generally a fan of WWII small unit actions, like something you might see in Band of Brothers, Saving Private Ryan or (my favorite) A Bridge Too Far.

Do you think including a simple suppression mechanic , would allow the power level to be adjusted down to more manageable levels by using more tactical options?

I very much want supression to factor into the game; I was inspired by Bolt Action's mechanic, but thought that a larger group firing at an enemy should have an easier time pinning down enemies, and that it should be more difficult to supress a mob than a couple guys.

How do you intend to address the imbalance between shooting and assault?

First off, I think a unit has to be foolishy brave to be bringing a knife to a gunfight, so I have a definate bias towards shooting. At the same time I recognize that there is a segment of the gaming population that enjoy hand-to-hand in 40K (my son being one). For most units, I expect H-to-H to only be the result of the two units slowly advancing on each other and ending up in each other's face. For the units dedicated to H-to-H, they need speed and/or the ability to resist being blown off the battlefield. There should also be tactics to reward catching units in the flank or screening melee attackers (facing arcs, targeting priority, single unit activation shenanigans and supression help in this regard). In the end though, melee units are likely just going to need a points discount because if your units are melee only (why, in this game you would do that I can't fanthom, but there's plenty of units that do), you'e going to lose some before they get to do anything.

Why do you think psychic powers need to be treated as a separate to the core game?

I tackled psychic powers as one of the last bits, as I wasn't sure what I needed to do with the system - it's had more iterations than the Assault phase over different editions. As psychic powers exist now in 40k, it is a tacked on system with little thought to its overall integration into the whole. I am attempting to integrate it so that it works like specialized wargear and its attack are in line with shooting attacks.

Do you want the rules to be written for the size of the minatures ,(detailed model focused skirmish,)or the number of minatures on the table.(Unit focused battle game.)

Also what game size do you prefer, 7th ed , 4th 5th ed, or 2nd ed?

TBH, while I've had access to the rules since RT, I didn't seriously pick up playing until end of 5th/start of 6th. Best I can say is that 1250 point games are about as big as I feel 40K can comfortably accomodate before it starts falling apart, and that's primarily about what I'm shooting for; about 3-4 infantry units (troops + elites), one or two dedicated transports, a unit of Fast attack and maybe a tank, plane or artillery unit on the board (one of the three, not one of each). And NO heroes (as bad as 40K rules are, named heroes just make it all the more worse).

That said, I am trying to do my best to cover all existing units (again, excepting named individuals), as well as accomodate other lines models where I see an opportunity to add in something interesting or fill an army's precieved gaps (after all, I'm not bound to just GW models).

@Stormonu.
Thanks for the information, as this has made it much easier to understand the general direction you want to take your new rules in.

I have a very similar ideas to you on what the end game play should be in a cleaned up 40k rule set.

I also believe the types of unit found in 40k are most similar in function to WWII or modern military units.
So I think the game play may suit the basic premise of modern warfare.

Mobility to take objectives, fire power to control enemy movement , and assault to contest objectives.

Does this sound right to you?

The basic idea is that if shooting and assault are not competing for the same limited in game function, but have different tactical roles in the game.
it would be easier to balance them out.

Would you be willing to look at the basic core interactions of basic units first. And when we get this foundation sorted out , look at adding the more 'exotic' type units?

It sounds like we have similar ideals for what we think the game should be.

I'd be very interested to hear you take on basic/core units, I would definitely want them to be viewed as useful units in the game and not a "tax".

I wanted to clearly define the types of unit in the new rules ,so we can define the basic tactical functions to them.
We can map these basic unit types onto closest real world counterparts , to make sure the tactical diversity is pronounced enough,so that no one feels they have to pay a 'troops tax.'

As I have stated before the current resentment to 'troops' is down to a overly restrictive base F.O.C in 40k .And a lack of tactical depth in the game play.
(So non troops have to have loads of cool sounding special rules to make them work , and this is counter productive IMO.)

In my experience over the last decade or so, the one thing that messes up most 40k re writes, is the focus on minutia in the current GW rules.
Its like trying to fix the performance of a car just by changing the dash board.IMO.
(Adding a more interactive game turn and mobility stat, is like putting the wheels back on so you do not have to carry the car around, obvious and very necessary IMO. .)

In 40k the units we currently have are .

Infantry .(foot slogers.)

Mobile infantry.(Infantry with transport.)

Mounted infantry /cavalry .(with personal transport.)

Airborne/Air cav .(Infantry deployed by air .)

Support vehicles.(Transport and close support.)

Tanks .

Light /medium artillery.

'Off table support '
Heavy artillery/air strikes.

(I am not happy with the way some 'Apoc ' type units were shoe horned into the standard game,I would like to add them back in to these rules using an expansion and a bit more care.)

Obviously in the 40k setting some armies use creatures to fill some of the unit rolls,(Tyranids etc.) and some use 'sci-fi tecnology' like teleportation instead of jumping from helicopters/parachuting in.
This is the 'fantastical veneer' that is supposed to be carefully applied over the top of a sold war game design .

GW seem to just chuck great gobs of fantastical 'rule of cool' at the 40k game play, in the vain hope enough people do not realize the rule set is a complete mess.

Is this the sort of thing you agree with?
Have I missed anything you think is important in the (very) basic unit types?

I am impressed with the quality of the work you have produced.I would like to help you get where you want to go by the most direct route .

I don't believe I really agree with your breakout on the infantry side. Personally, I don't see a reason to do a break between infantry & mobile infantry, and airborne/air cav seems dubious to me.

On the other hand, I can see breaking out artillery from heavy support/tanks - but I don't think a distinction needs to be made between on-board and off-board artillery/air strikes - that can be handled in the way reserve rules are handled

I'm not entirely bound to the FOC, but I do believe it has merits. Right now, the rules I have are looking at the following variations:

- Headquarters & command staff (HQ) - support and staff units would likely fall here (such as battle priests or a navy advisor)
- Specialists (formerly Elites) - these would usually be surgical strike teams, but may also include units with specialized skill sets
- Troops (any troop can take a dedicated transport)
- Dedicated Transport (any lightly armed/armored vehicle designed to tow equipment and/or carry troops)
- Heavy Support (man-portable weapon teams - MG's, mortars or other such items); towed guns & mortar teams would be a special Artillery subtype that would go here
- Tanks (armored vehicles w/ dedicated weapons); Artillery is a special subtype usually falling in this category
- Recon (troops used for rapid strike and fade)
- Aerial (planes & hovering vehicles; they can harass units in reserve)

Right now, Cavalry/Bike units would likely fall under Recon , but I'm not sure if they should have their own breakout or be considered Recon with their own built-in Dedicated transports.

@Stormonu.
I am trying to list unit types that have different tactical functions, and tactical limitations in game terms .
These are not the classifications I want to use for the basis of a F.O.C.

But a way to make sure the tactical roles are not diminished and relegated to insignificance like the current 40k rules have done.Resulting in a tactically shallow game.

To cover all the unit roles effectively we need to make sure all the methods of survivabiity and influence on the battle ground are covered.
Numerical advantage, stealth/agility, armour speed, resilience, effective weapons range and accuracy etc.

Some of these are absent from 40k, and this is in part why we have such a horrible mess of a rule set.

My idea for a F.O.C would be to have unit classed by rarity in the themed force, and the HQ unit selected setting the theme of the force.

HQ (these set the theme of the force.)
Common units.(These define the core of the force along with the HQ selected.)
Support units.(These are attached to the core to re enforce the core for specific mission types.)
Special units.(These are very rare/restricted units that only appear in very special circumstances .)

Each faction could have multiple themed F.O.C .
EG the Orks could have the old Klan based themed lists.Bad Moonz, Blood Axe, Deff Skulls,Evil Sunz Goffs,Snake Bitez, and Kult Of Speed.

In my experience players are very capable of creative intelligent thought, and do not have to be spoon fed how they should use units in the game.

If the units stat line is doing its job properly , the player knows the in game capability of every unit , and can make their OWN tactical decisions about how they want to use them.

Sorry if that came across as a bit of a rant. I hope that explains my ideas a bit better?

I'm not sure my thinking is bending to what you are attempting to get across, but if we are discussing 'Roles', then I would say you would also have to put in considerations for ranged/melee/mixed as that has a huge impact on how the troops are employed. Likewise, a division along evasive/direct/tanky for their approach methodology.

@Stormanu.
The tactical roles determine the wider range of tactical options player COULD use that particular type of unit for.(Rather than impose artificial restriction on how units are used, like 40k does.)

This means when we assign the unit stats we make sure the units tactical options are intuitive.
And end up with 'evasive' light infantry, and 'tanky' heavy armour, for example (Rather than 'evasive' bunkers and 'tanky' bikes. )

If we can define unit function with properly applied stats , we will not need so many special rules.

I am trying to start from scratch so we have a solid foundation of understanding to build on.
(I appreciate your patience, in allowing me to try to explain my ideas. )

OOOPS!.
(I sort of forgot to explain what I was doing a bit higher up.. )
As we sort of agreed the game play of 40k, was closest to WWII /modern type war.

I wanted the list the sort of units you would expect to find on the table in modern war game of a similar size to the new game size of 40k you suggested.
This means we can relate the 40k units to the closest modern unit type, so we can keep the way units function tactically intuitive to the players.

EG tanks behave like we expect tanks to behave in terms of in game performance.I hope that makes it a bit easier to understand what I was trying to do?

What about tyranids (or any other non-army like force, say Dark Eldar)? They're a little different, mostly with their big bugs. A carnifex doesn't exactly work like a tank (i guess that would be true of all walkers, like dreadnoughts) - and how would you classify something like the Mawloc?

@Stormonu.
The background narrative/game setting and art work tell you what the units in the game should 'look and sound' like.

The rules function is to define how they work in the game.(EG the range of tactical uses they can perform.)

I am aware that a Carniflex does not have the same internal workings as a tank, but the in game tactical function is similar.
As both are large, imposing, hard to damage,(compared to infantry,)And are capable of inflicting lots of damage.

A lot of the problems with the 40k rues are the subjective art is mixed up with the objective function of the rules.IMO.

Yes, but isn't lobbing walkers (& carnifex) into the same function a bit of shoehorning? A tank, for example, can't engage in melee combat like a walker can; a tank in melee is generally in a bad spot, whereas a walker might well excel.

It sounds like Lanrak is trying to classify units by abstracts.

A carnifex built a certain way to function in a certain role would fit in different "foc" slots. The problem comes when you start to have hybrid roles. Or the fact that many units in the game are adaptable to being built for very different jobs.

Lanrak, you need to stop posting your ideas as abstract discussions and start posting actual solidified ideas. You think the FoC role that currently exist are silly. Fine. Write out the actual system you think is better.

One more thing to add on the unit classification; you have infantry units broken out, but have lumped all vehicles into "tanks" (and "artillery") - I think you should consider breaking those out as well.

I would suggest:

Batteries (Vaul Support, Thunderfire, Ork Cannons, etc.)
Motorized cavalry (jeeps, speeders, venoms,etc.)
Walkers (dreadnoughts, wraithlords, killa kans, etc.)
Transports (rhino, chimera, wave serpent)
Tank (hell hound, leman russ, falcon, predator, land raider)
Artillery (Baskilisk, Whirlwind, Hunter, etc.)

Also, I do have to echo Lance's statement - in the end, I have the rules above mostly compiled. How do your suggestions for classifications relate to what I have already written?

@Stormonu.
If I was using a WWII tank like a Stug III to support my infantry advance.
And I added tank riders from my grenadier units to give the Stug III a better close combat ability.

That extends the tactical flexibility to allow the Stug III to engage in close assaults more effectively.

In a similar way as 40k tank type unit can have things that improve its close combat ability.(Powerfists, Klaws, Rending claws/talons etc.)Or even have only short range assault capability.

Its size ,durability, and ability to inflict heavy damage,( at range or close quarters).That determined the tactical use of a 'tank unit' compared to an A,P,C. , infantry or artillery type units .
Ill leave this here ,as it appears to be causing confusion rather than the clarity I had hoped for...

@Lance 845.
I did write out my replacement F.O.C idea higher up in this thread.

I think there is still confusion over the idea. What i think you are proposing is that various units have a specific foc slot role which are redfined into something you consider to be less silly than 40ks. But, based on upgrades they could unlock the ability to be taken in other foc roles as well? So tanks, but also support if they have the correct wargear?

Is that correct?

At which point all the war gear needs definitions that define what foc slots they open up for the units equiped with them.

I am proposing the F,O,C is based on the theme of the force.

EG a SM codex could have a

First company Heavy Assault list.
(Terminators.)

A Recon force.
(All bikes and speeders.)

A Siege List.(Devastators and Heavy artillery type units..)

A Ground Pounders list.

A Mech Infantry list.

An Airborne list.

All lists are set out as outlined above.
HQ unit.
Common unlts
Support Units.
Specialist units.

In 40k the tactical role of 'tank' is not just kept to 'tanks' and some MCs that makes sense.
But some Aircraft and ICs are acting like tanks!

Hmm, sounds like some of the lists I've seen in Bolt Action - such a Germany having different load-outs when comparing a Panzergrenadier and a Heer army list.