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.

Nurglitch wrote:40k isn't military history. It's military science-fantasy draped over a game; what real tanks do is irrelevant to what they do in the game. Here's where I'd add something insulting about people who thought otherwise, but that would just be crude.

What real tanks do is quite relevant to what the simulated tanks do in the game. If they are supposed to behave like bunkers, then they should be called bunkers, not tanks. If the rules don't produce results that bear any resemblance to actual military engagements (And they don't), then the rules need to be thrown out and rewritten completely. The 40K revisited project is a good example of where 5th edition should be headed.

Although the 40K rules themselves can never be truly fixed until the IGOUGO is replaced with a WEGO system, but that's almost certainly too complicated for the uneducated high school kids at which GW aims their writing.

I'll also point out that sponson mounted weapons and pintle mounted weapons will definitely not be useless if the .pdf is any indication. Sponson weapons can still be used at a stop and nothing prevents a vehicle from shooting and scooting, rather than grinding along firing every turn.

Only an idiot would move the tank instead of leaving it stationary in cover and doubling or tripling its firepower. And we know full well that the rule writers are idiots, since they've decided that causing more wounds to a unit should be able to result in fewer casualties. I can guarantee you that competent players will not move their tanks in 5th edition games unless there are absolutely no valid targets within the vehicle's line of sight.

The Falcon is Fast, so it can move up to 6" without losing any firepower.

and if it does so it does not benefit from "moving fast" so it gets no cover save. it is in effect sitting still in the open.

An Russ without Ordnance and a Rail-less RailHead serves no purpose but to Tank Shock.

incorrect on both counts. a russ especially can expect to loose it's battle cannon from any weapon destroyed result it gets during the game. and it is more likely to get such a result under the new damage table. a triple heavy bolter sponson russ with a stubber currently is an infantry killing machine even after it looses the battle cannon. and the secondary weapons on a hammerhead while not as effective as a russ or still there to do some shooting with.

the whole point of taking a vehicle over a dev squad type unit is its ability to be a mobile heavy weapons platform.

Who does that? Sponsons have always been wasted points.

every IG player i know takes sponson mounts on thier russ's simple because they expect the cannon to get destroyed and depending on the situation the heavy bolters(and sometimes a las cannon) are better choices.

Bouyancy: Well, there's your problem. You think that the "tanks" in Warhammer 40k somehow simulate what real tanks do. Warhammer 40k isn't a military simulation and hence "tanks" don't simulate tanks. Since the Warhammer 40k rules aren't a military simulation, then whether they bear any resemblance to actual military engagements is irrelevant.

The Warhammer 40k rules are what they are, rules for a game of toy soldiers. If you think they should be something other than what they are, then there are plenty of rules out there for games that try to be military simulations. I've written a couple, for example.

The rules writers for GW certainly aren't idiots as they know the product they are making and knowing that they know that the game they charged with writing is neither a military simulation nor intended to be. They know better than to try to make cricket into baseball, so to speak.

Nurglitch wrote:Warhammer 40k isn't a military simulation

Well then what precisely would you call it?

It's a game where models move around. Like Chess, Risk and/or Go. You can call it Imperial Bureaucracy 40k (tm), pretend these guys are in a departmental faction shuffling papers and trying to get to the top of the ladder while keeping others down, and the game will still work out the same.

In fact, if more civilian/at-ease 40k models were made, this is probably what I would imagine happens in a game.

edit: If you play marines and predominantly play other marines, you can pretend the battlefield is a big club or bar.

IntoTheRain: A Table Top Miniatures Game, or TTMG.