Tank melee. WHY DOES IT EXIST?

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.

**deotrims 16th**

How does a tank fight in melee please tell me. I think they should be able to use their sponsoon weapons as that was why they were used in WWI as the enemy was always very close to you. I also think they should be able to shoot at targets within 1 inch non fighting phase wise and withdraw from combat without the no shoot penalty because with infantry they can't escape as they are blocked but the tank can just run the infantry over.

**Horst**

deotrims 16th wrote:
How does a tank fight in melee please tell me. I think they should be able to use their sponsoon weapons as that was why they were used in WWI as the enemy was always very close to you. I also think they should be able to shoot at targets within 1 inch non fighting phase wise and withdraw from combat without the no shoot penalty because with infantry they can't escape as they are blocked but the tank can just run the infantry over.

Tanks fight in melee by running over the enemy with their steel treads.

**Vaktathi**

deotrims 16th wrote:
How does a tank fight in melee please tell me. I think they should be able to use their sponsoon weapons as that was why they were used in WWI as the enemy was always very close to you. I also think they should be able to shoot at targets within 1 inch non fighting phase wise and withdraw from combat without the no shoot penalty because with infantry they can't escape as they are blocked but the tank can just run the infantry over.

Essentially view tank melee as treads crushing infantry, turrets turning and knocking people off, using 50 ton tanks as battering rams, etc.

Things like sponson weapons work for dissuading the infantry as they approach, but if they get close enough to actually physically reach the tank, the sponson weapons are almost certainly unable to be brought to bear, thats why tanks need infantry support.

Unfortunately 40k cant encompasse everything and must rely on abstraction, and detailed tank assault rules just dont fit at 40ks current scale, so they're treated, along with monsters and other large units, rather artificially.

**Silentz**

I now have a massive desire for deotrims to get into a hand to hand fight with a tank.

**Irbis**

You really need to ask when this song is canon?

"The tracks on the Land Raider crush the heretics, crush the heretics, crush the heretics.
The tracks on the Land Raider crush the heretics all day long..."

**Grimtuff**

deotrims 16th wrote:
How does a tank fight in melee please tell me. I think they should be able to use their sponsoon weapons as that was why they were used in WWI as the enemy was always very close to you. I also think they should be able to shoot at targets within 1 inch non fighting phase wise and withdraw from combat without the no shoot penalty because with infantry they can't escape as they are blocked but the tank can just run the infantry over.

You wanted Tanks to have the same statlines as infantry and MC. This is the world you live in now. You've made this bed now you've gotta lie in it.

FWIW I love the new tank stats and degrading statlines etc.

**deotrims 16th**

Silentz wrote:
I now have a massive desire for deotrims to get into a hand to hand fight with a tank.

Just so long as I'm in allarus armour with a heavy thunder hammer any day.

**Grimtuff**

deotrims 16th wrote:
Silentz wrote:
I now have a massive desire for deotrims to get into a hand to hand fight with a tank.

Just so long as I'm in allarus armour with a heavy thunder hammer any day.

Tanks- exist.

TH and armour- exist, but only in plastic and at miniature scale.

My money is on the tank.

**deotrims 16th**

also i'm not saying they can't crush heretics I said that in the original post I'm just pointing out why trench warfare and all IOM tanks actually have sponsoons but modern tanks which don't have special boys trying to punch them to death don't.

**Grimtuff**

deotrims 16th wrote:
also i'm not saying they can't crush heretics I said that in the original post I'm just pointing out why trench warfare and all IOM tanks actually have sponsoons but modern tanks which don't have special boys trying to punch them to death don't.

Time to wheel out this quote again.

White Dwarf 366, June 2010 wrote:
"What is interesting about the tanks of the 41st millennium," Dave (Andrews) says, leaning back in his chair and pointing to a nearby Leman Russ, "is that they're sci-fi vehicles, but unlike any you'll see elsewhere, take the Imperial Guard tanks. In truth they share more in common with a tank from the interwar period of the 20th century than they do a modern battle tank or anything 'futuristic'. They have curiously misshapen hulls, riveted armour plates and absolutely no aesthetic concession to the technological advances we have nowadays. Imperial Guard tanks don't even have proper, sloped armour and that is quite deliberate.

Their design spawns from the thought process of what a fundamentally 'backwards' tank would look like 38,000 years in the future in a place where technological understanding has collapsed and innovation is outlawed. The Imperium is archaic and backwards, clinging to the remnants of incredible technologies such as Plasma Cannons and Las weapons. The image is so exciting and unusual because these misunderstood innovations are embedded in fighting vehicles that make a modern tank look like a technical marvel."

Stop comparing Russes to modern tanks, because they aren't modern tanks.

**deotrims 16th**

I'm not trying to say one is better I'm saying there could be a reason that even when the big E was about and tech was advancing he designed tanks like that knowing the imperial army would be in a lot of trench warfare. also as regimental standard said sloped armour deflects projectiles into the supporting infantry so that was acknowledged and deliberate.

**Irbis**

Actually he didn't 'design' them, almost all the tanks IoM now uses are STC patterns (and some were even arguably a civilian vehicles before). Moreover, they are not even advanced STC designs, it was stuff designed for new colonies, sort of equivalent of third world country army T-55 in modern terms...

**Grand.Master.Raziel**

I'm going to point out satchel charges have been a thing for longer than tanks have been a thing. So hostile infantry right up against the sides of a tank is a real problem for tank crewmen.

**CthuluIsSpy**

Wasn't the Leman Russ a originally a tractor that they stuck guns onto? I remember reading that.

Anyway, the whole tank in combat thing is an attempt to simplify the Tank Shock rules into something that actually works. It is kind of goofy and could need some refinement, but that's what it appears the intent was.
If infantry gets close enough the vehicle might not be able to shoot them (as the infantry will be past the muzzles), which is why the vehicle can't shoot in combat. Its an abstraction.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

deotrims 16th wrote:
I'm not trying to say one is better I'm saying there could be a reason that even when the big E was about and tech was advancing he designed tanks like that knowing the imperial army would be in a lot of trench warfare. also as regimental standard said sloped armour deflects projectiles into the supporting infantry so that was acknowledged and deliberate.

The Emperor didn't design tanks. No idea where you got that idea from, but those tank designs have been around way longer than the Emperor.

**HoundsofDemos**

Tanks fight in melee like every other unit because GW wanted to simplify several mechanics from previous edition. Previously most vehicles couldn't fight back at all, but could tank shock or ram other vehicles, which while fun, was pages upon pages of rules and interactions.

**Sgt. Cortez**

Rolling 3 6es to hit is still more straitforward than tank shocking last edition, which usually made me read the rulebook for 10mins to then realize that it's totally fiddly and pointless.

**CthuluIsSpy**

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Rolling 3 6es to hit is still more straitforward than tank shocking last edition, which usually made me read the rulebook for 10mins to then realize that it's totally fiddly and pointless.

Yeah, and it doesn't do anything.
Oh joy, you made an enemy squad move. How effective.
The only time it actually matters is if you push them off the table or if they have heavy weapons. Which is situational and goofy as hell.

**wuestenfux**

Think about tanks versus tanks in melee.

**the_scotsman**

CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Rolling 3 6es to hit is still more straitforward than tank shocking last edition, which usually made me read the rulebook for 10mins to then realize that it's totally fiddly and pointless.

Yeah, and it doesn't do anything.
Oh joy, you made an enemy squad move. How effective.
The only time it actually matters is if you push them off the table or if they have heavy weapons. Which is situational and goofy as hell.

IIRC it did force a morale check unless they decided to death or glory, which if they failed they would be broken. It was useful in freakshow lists to force extra ld tests.

**Pancakey**

HoundsofDemos wrote:
Tanks fight in melee like every other unit because GW wanted to simplify several mechanics from previous edition. Previously most vehicles couldn't fight back at all, but could tank shock or ram other vehicles, which while fun, was pages upon pages of rules and interactions.

Because 3 attacks hitting on 6+ is Ohhhh so much better.

**leopard**

because tanks do historically fight in melee, no reason the far future would be different.

its basically just infantry being too close for the tank to effectively use its ranged weapons as infantry can simply be too close to the hull to be hit, while at the same time stuffing grenades etc where ever they can.

traditionally its not a good place for the tank, but the infantry are not safe either hence the tank fighting back, just not very well.

putting it in the same stats and system as everything else makes it easy to apply modifiers, e.g. the Deff Rolla, wreaking ball and other such things, plus not hard to imagine stuff like mine flails etc.

it works, and it works without a stack of special rules

**Grimtuff**

CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Wasn't the Leman Russ a originally a tractor that they stuck guns onto? I remember reading that.

That would be the Land Crawler

**amazingturtles**

wuestenfux wrote:
Think about tanks versus tanks in melee.

That was what i imagined from the title.

And now it's all that i'm imagining.

It's beautiful.

**Ghorgul**

Grand.Master.Raziel wrote:
I'm going to point out satchel charges have been a thing for longer than tanks have been a thing. So hostile infantry right up against the sides of a tank is a real problem for tank crewmen.

Yeah! But come 8th edition GW removes meltabombs from the game for pressing ceremonial reasons.

In grim dark future of 40k, infantry wrestles with tanks so hard the tanks can't shoot, but the infantry doesn't really do any damage, they are more like gremlins and just block all the windows and targeting optics while majority of tanks can hardly run over a single enemy model in melee.

**generalchaos34**

I dont mind that tanks hit on a 6+.

What I really want is that if a thank hits something, it should HURT. Like D3 damage and an AP of some kind hurt, its a Tank running you over! Also I wouldn't mind if some of the bigger tanks like Leman Russes got a small bonus when they charge, maybe a bonus to hit or something, since its a big tank ramming you (ideally it would be something like if they moved over X inches that turn when they charge, sounds like a whole lot of fun, albeit very limited.

**TwinPoleTheory**

This is really just the 8th edition version of ramming rules. Specific vehicles designed to ram usually have special rules allowing them to do MW more reliably on charge.

**Stux**

generalchaos34 wrote:
I dont mind that tanks hit on a 6+.

What I really want is that if a thank hits something, it should HURT. Like D3 damage and an AP of some kind hurt, its a Tank running you over! Also I wouldn't mind if some of the bigger tanks like Leman Russes got a small bonus when they charge, maybe a bonus to hit or something, since its a big tank ramming you (ideally it would be something like if they moved over X inches that turn when they charge, sounds like a whole lot of fun, albeit very limited.

I agree with this. Vehicles should get some AP, and for medium and bigger also do more than 1 damage. At least on the charge.

It should be difficult to run over someone with a tank, but it should really hurt when it happens!

**HoundsofDemos**

Pancakey wrote:
HoundsofDemos wrote:
Tanks fight in melee like every other unit because GW wanted to simplify several mechanics from previous edition. Previously most vehicles couldn't fight back at all, but could tank shock or ram other vehicles, which while fun, was pages upon pages of rules and interactions.

Because 3 attacks hitting on 6+ is Ohhhh so much better.

It is from the mind set that 3 attacks, hitting on sixes is a very simple and is resolved fast. Tank shocking in an ideal setting takes a lot more time to resolve, and could lead to some really weird reactions. GW has made it clear they want a simpler game with less wonky rules.

**Bharring**

Tank melee exists as an excuse to paint your treads RED WITH BLOOD!

BLOOD FOR THE EMPRAH!

(I SWEAR WE'RE LOYALISTS!)

**Stormonu**

I have no issue with melee values on tanks. I just wish there were overrun rules - for vehicles AND monsters.