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.

 Arkaine wrote:
Warhammer Fantasy has some particularly unkillable lords as well. Having 1+ rerollable armor saves that if failed allow a 3++ ward save (which for Tzeentch lords means re-rolling 1s) can be rather hard to wound for most units, especially when the common Strength is 3. One advantage there is that no matter the Toughness you can always wound on a 6. But that doesn't come into play too much in 40k unless a Wraithknight is on the table. Considering Fantasy lords can have 9 attacks at S7 that hit on 3s, wound on 2s, possibly 4+ FNP, and have ways to HEAL midbattle, they're just as impossible to kill.

This is a little misleading in fantasy. There are a ton of spells and warmachines that can kill a lord on its own, or cavarly unit, quite easily. You can also charge in the flank try to ignore the hero if you have to, or throw in a sacrifical champ challenge (though he will get overkill) while your hero attempts to kill as many troops as possible. The armies that have really excellent champs tend to have horrible shooting, though their magic still tends to be quite strong.

Strength reduces armor saves as well. Against standard guns, that lord will have a 3+ save, and is most likely mounted to get it that low (or has expensive armor).

In fantasy, the most OP thing is magic. Mindrazor can turn elves into Str 8-9 monsters capable of destroying any unit, Purple Sun can wipe some armies (dwarves, ogres, undead, lizzies) off the board in 1-2 castings. Even the lore of beasts can turn a regular human lord into a powerful combat monster with the right spells. Combat lords aren't nearly as good as caster lords, usually 1 hero level character is taken for combat outside of a few armies (VC, WoC if Tzeentch). This may no longer be true in AoS, but in the last few editions magic lores ruled the roost of OP stuff. Especially suicide IF spamming casters who were guaranteed a spell.

 Arkaine wrote:

The difference is in what you're allowed to bring in Fantasy. More attacks, for one thing, as units can easily be 40 guys strong, don't usually lose any attacks until they've lost a rank or two of guys, and get most of their attacks in combat regardless of any pile-in requirements. Weak units have access to superior weapons that let them stand against tough enemies, like +2 Strength Flails that give the whole squad S5 attacks. Likewise, there are lots of strong Heros, Lords, and Monsters that can stand against the most devastating enemies on somewhat equal ground. Not to mention how powerful Magic is with spells from Lord of Metal and Lore of Death not caring how powerful your armored warrior really is. You think D-weapons are bad.... try losing an 800+ model to a single Purple Sun cast.

Well, only the front rank can fight for most units, so for most armies this is 6 guys. 2 ranks is for spears, and spears are considered decent but not amazing (+2 Str weapons are commonly taken, since they lower armor and help with wounding, or shields are taken) outside of high elves and lizzies, who get additional bonuses for spears. Plus magic.
CR is what has traditionally helped most armies against combat lords. 5 ranks with a banner and a hero killing 2 guys and another unit charging the flank causing 2 more wounds can destroy a unit that did 8-9 wounds (Outnumber, Banner, Ranks, Flank, enemy doesn't get flank). This became less important when magic started buffing units to the point where they could score 8-9 kills on their own (High elves with ASF re-rolling hits fighting in 3 ranks with mind razor, for example) but traditionally that is what helped.

Monsters have always been hit or miss in fantasy. Some of them are very good, like the hydra, while the majority are just cannon fodder. Sometimes a rider helps but usually this just makes them way too expensive. Recently a lot of the monsters got better though.

 Arkaine wrote:

I don't think MCs being strong is the problem. I think our infantry need more options to face them if they want to and every codex needs more badass heroes that annihilate worlds. Paying 25 pts for a Powerfist means you probably aren't taking a Powerfist. That's what's wrong... holding the rank and file troops back in terms of power potential with prohibitive costs while allowing the top tier units to have oodles of undercosted nonsense.

I think if tanks were stronger, or more weapons were handed out to basic infantry that could damage MC's or GMCs, you'd start seeing less of them. As it is, they are way too good for the points. I'm not sure if we should go back to the days of the hidden powerfist (because right now, a character MC will just kill the power fist guy via challenge). People were very upset about their wraithlord being bogged down and slowly plinked to death by a single marine with a fist that they couldn't do anything to stop (and with only 2 attacks, it was a very slow death).

Wraith lord: basic loadout, 2 flamers and a ghost glaive. 125 points.

T8 (so effectively 12/12/12), 3W, 3+ save. Undoubtedly, much tougher than a dread, especially because he gets area terrain.

It's S10 AP2, same as our dread, but gets fewer attacks. Also, the dread gets a stock heavy weapon, the wraithknight easily breaks 150 points if he wants one. Moves through cover exactly the same as the dread.

So the dread gets some pretty decent offense benefit, and costs less. Sorry, I'm still not convinced MCs are inherently OP. I think they could remove area cover from them, but I think that would leave balanced MCs underpowered. I think the gargantuan and flyer rules as well as Jink are a train wreck, but going after MCs in general is as dumb as saying anything that moves 12" should move 8" because bikes are currently ridiculous.

the_scotsman wrote:
Wraith lord: basic loadout, 2 flamers and a ghost glaive. 125 points.

T8 (so effectively 12/12/12), 3W, 3+ save. Undoubtedly, much tougher than a dread, especially because he gets area terrain.

It's S10 AP2, same as our dread, but gets fewer attacks. Also, the dread gets a stock heavy weapon, the wraithknight easily breaks 150 points if he wants one. Moves through cover exactly the same as the dread.

So the dread gets some pretty decent offense benefit, and costs less. Sorry, I'm still not convinced MCs are inherently OP. I think they could remove area cover from them, but I think that would leave balanced MCs underpowered. I think the gargantuan and flyer rules as well as Jink are a train wreck, but going after MCs in general is as dumb as saying anything that moves 12" should move 8" because bikes are currently ridiculous.

Um, as a Necron player, vehicles are much more underpowered. A Wraithlord is wounded on 6s by Gauss, and has a 3+ save. Vehicles/Dreads are glanced on 6s, with no saves unless they manage to finagle a cover save somehow. I'm not afraid of a Dreadnaught. I am afraid of Riptides and Dreadknights...

the_scotsman wrote:
Wraith lord: basic loadout, 2 flamers and a ghost glaive. 125 points.

T8 (so effectively 12/12/12), 3W, 3+ save. Undoubtedly, much tougher than a dread, especially because he gets area terrain.

It's S10 AP2, same as our dread, but gets fewer attacks. Also, the dread gets a stock heavy weapon, the wraithknight easily breaks 150 points if he wants one. Moves through cover exactly the same as the dread.

So the dread gets some pretty decent offense benefit, and costs less. Sorry, I'm still not convinced MCs are inherently OP. I think they could remove area cover from them, but I think that would leave balanced MCs underpowered. I think the gargantuan and flyer rules as well as Jink are a train wreck, but going after MCs in general is as dumb as saying anything that moves 12" should move 8" because bikes are currently ridiculous.

But with the Wraithlord only technically needs to hit and damage once to kill dread, dread needs to hit 3 times and wound 3 times to kill the wraithlord. Then for shooting, put toe of wraitlord in cover. Immediate cover save, a dread needs to be obscured.

oz of the north wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
Wraith lord: basic loadout, 2 flamers and a ghost glaive. 125 points.

T8 (so effectively 12/12/12), 3W, 3+ save. Undoubtedly, much tougher than a dread, especially because he gets area terrain.

It's S10 AP2, same as our dread, but gets fewer attacks. Also, the dread gets a stock heavy weapon, the wraithknight easily breaks 150 points if he wants one. Moves through cover exactly the same as the dread.

So the dread gets some pretty decent offense benefit, and costs less. Sorry, I'm still not convinced MCs are inherently OP. I think they could remove area cover from them, but I think that would leave balanced MCs underpowered. I think the gargantuan and flyer rules as well as Jink are a train wreck, but going after MCs in general is as dumb as saying anything that moves 12" should move 8" because bikes are currently ridiculous.

But with the Wraithlord only technically needs to hit and damage once to kill dread, dread needs to hit 3 times and wound 3 times to kill the wraithlord. Then for shooting, put toe of wraitlord in cover. Immediate cover save, a dread needs to be obscured.

Dread vs Wraithlord
Both move 6" a turn
Both ignore cover
Both pretty close in points
Both do S10 AP2
Both have 5/6th chance of wounding each other in CC

One is weaker vs grav.
One is weaker vs Lascannons.

Anyone saying MCs are too strong are clearly not taking the entirety of the meta in mind. If you're having trouble with MCs, you probably aren't competitive to begin with, and aren't taking optimal lists.

Edit: I can fractions

the_scotsman wrote:
Wraith lord: basic loadout, 2 flamers and a ghost glaive. 125 points.

T8 (so effectively 12/12/12), 3W, 3+ save. Undoubtedly, much tougher than a dread, especially because he gets area terrain.

This is where the MCs tend to shine. While you can argue that the toughness is the same, the 3+ save makes a world of difference against weapons like scat bikes.
Not to mention that the Dread is very weak against haywire, which more armies have access to than poison.

You're also glancing over the fact that, every time the dreadnought takes a wound, a damage table is rolled that can result in instant death, a weapon destroyed, or some other result that makes it useless for the entire game. The wraithlord keeps going at full speed until it dies.

the_scotsman wrote:

It's S10 AP2, same as our dread, but gets fewer attacks. Also, the dread gets a stock heavy weapon, the wraithknight easily breaks 150 points if he wants one. Moves through cover exactly the same as the dread.

The Wraithlord has 2 flamers for clearing infantry, and the glaive and melee to take on anything else. The dread has slightly better offensive output (one heavy weapon is terrible, you will always buy another) but you'll be upgrading them both. Or buying a pod for the dread (most likely will do this regardless).
After upgrades, the Wraithlord is more expensive, but it has only a bit weaker firepower and is considerably tougher. The Dreadnought can be removed by one lucky shot after all, the wraithknight can only say the same in the case of ID.

the_scotsman wrote:

So the dread gets some pretty decent offense benefit, and costs less. Sorry, I'm still not convinced MCs are inherently OP. I think they could remove area cover from them, but I think that would leave balanced MCs underpowered. I think the gargantuan and flyer rules as well as Jink are a train wreck, but going after MCs in general is as dumb as saying anything that moves 12" should move 8" because bikes are currently ridiculous.

It's not a pretty decent offensive benefit. Slightly less attacks but with a re-roll, and two flamers compared to a single HW, is not a significant difference. Its target dependent. Neither one will reach melee unless the enemy wants to fight you for some reason anyway, since they are incredibly slow.

You are really under selling the difference in toughness. Lords can easily get a cover save, and are very resistant to the Str 6-7 Ap 4-6 weapons that we see dominating many lists right now.
Lords are also better against necron gauss weapons, haywire, melta (especially from dragons, a melta nearly auto wounds a dread but needs a 4+ to wound the lord, and fire dragons will kill a dread nearly automatically, while cover might keep the lord alive) that the better dexes can bring to the table. A melta or firedragon weapon can also 1 shot a Dreadnought, which won't happen against the lord. Even without that, a lot of the rolls on the damage table are horrible for the dread (losing a weapon, immobilized) while the wraithlord keeps on trucking until it dies.

Frankly, I'm surprised you don't see the advantages of no damage table, an armor save (in an era where gauss weapons and scat bikes exist), easier access to terrain, and being more resistant to more commonly seen weapon types.

Isn't the Wraithlord S8 now?

On the charge, the dreadnought has a 62% chance of a one-round kill (assuming with shooting). If charged that drops to 26%.

On the charge the wraithknight has a ~40% chance of a one-round kill, ~28% if charged (accounting for the possibility of an explode and a 3-wound.)

MC can also be killed instantly with force weapons, where walkers cannot... I know not every army has access but thought it is worth mentioning

Is it a good idea to give the Wraithlord a Ghostglaive?

I could be wrong, but I thought the main use of Wraithlords was as weapon platforms? They still hit hard in combat, but can also shoot in the meantime.

Though, admittedly, that was before the WK made them obsolete.

 vipoid wrote:
Is it a good idea to give the Wraithlord a Ghostglaive?

I could be wrong, but I thought the main use of Wraithlords was as weapon platforms? They still hit hard in combat, but can also shoot in the meantime.

Though, admittedly, that was before the WK made them obsolete.

Well, Ghostglaive is only 5 points and and ups its str from 8 to 9 and gives it master-crafted... and it does not limit you taking other weapons either

No, it's a pretty terrible idea to use the Dreadnought or Wraith Lord as a melee beast. Both are very slow, and neither is likely to see melee with anything that doesn't think it can win...like say wraiths or TWC. Or a GMC.

They both are used as shooting platforms.
Here the toughness of the Wraithlord makes it a lot better than the Dreadnought. Keep in mind that the Wraith Lord is not even a great MC, while the Dreadnought is most likely one of the better walkers out there...and still doesn't see any play.

Scotsman, the melee strength of the dread isn't in question. Sadly, melee strength of a very slow defensively weak model doesn't really come into the equation when we are discussing model strength.

I do see the benefit...and also the associated point cost. And I think for a mobile weapons platform and other roles, Wraithlords, Carnifexes (and other nid beasties), and daemon monsters are all perfectly fine.

When you're looking at balancing a game system you have to consider which balance levers are making a unit overpowered, and which you can pull to get the most bang for your buck while not causing unintended consequences.

Taking "bikes are currently overpowered" and changing them so that all units that move 12" now move 8" does nerf bikes...and it also craters already underpowered jump infantry.

So maybe you think "huh, looks like FMCs and bikes AND skimmers are doing really well right now...so maybe you should change Jink instead of the movement rate thing. Or maybe you get rid of +1T, or re-institute the 4(3) thing from 5th when bikes were fine.

Do I think there are some really egregious MC units right now? Totally. But I think it's because of FMC, GMC rules and slapping ridiculous mobility on things in 6th that then get crazily strong in 7th, not MC rules.

the_scotsman wrote:
I do see the benefit...and also the associated point cost. And I think for a mobile weapons platform and other roles, Wraithlords, Carnifexes (and other nid beasties), and daemon monsters are all perfectly fine.

When you're looking at balancing a game system you have to consider which balance levers are making a unit overpowered, and which you can pull to get the most bang for your buck while not causing unintended consequences.

Taking "bikes are currently overpowered" and changing them so that all units that move 12" now move 8" does nerf bikes...and it also craters already underpowered jump infantry.

So maybe you think "huh, looks like FMCs and bikes AND skimmers are doing really well right now...so maybe you should change Jink instead of the movement rate thing. Or maybe you get rid of +1T, or re-institute the 4(3) thing from 5th when bikes were fine.

Do I think there are some really egregious MC units right now? Totally. But I think it's because of FMC, GMC rules and slapping ridiculous mobility on things in 6th that then get crazily strong in 7th, not MC rules.

Agreed. And in the case of the Wraithknight for example, he was already considered great in the previous codex. Then for a 55 point increase in the new codex, he went from a MC to a GC and his guns went from Str 10 to Str D. THATS what makes him so undercosted.

the_scotsman wrote:
I do see the benefit...and also the associated point cost. And I think for a mobile weapons platform and other roles, Wraithlords, Carnifexes (and other nid beasties), and daemon monsters are all perfectly fine.

Sure, MCs are perfectly fine in this role.
Walkers, however, are terrible for this role.

When you're looking at balancing a game system you have to consider which balance levers are making a unit overpowered, and which you can pull to get the most bang for your buck while not causing unintended consequences.

People saying MC's are overpowered are thinking of specific units like wraithknights and riptides.

Yust taking a look at my own codex would annyone say these Mc's are OP.

Trygon, Exocrine, haruspex, maleceptor, tervigon, toxicrene, Tyranofex, carnifex, old one eye, swarmlord.

All MC none of which too strong. Tyrants are good cause they can get wings without themm different story.

MC rules are fine. Certain units are not.

The argument is
"Are MC's better than vehicles in the core rules?"
I think we can say that the answer is yes.

Skimmers, transports, and flyers are the only vehicles you see anymore. This is because they can jink, are extremely cheap, or require 6's to hit.

Akiasura wrote:
The argument is
"Are MC's better than vehicles in the core rules?"
I think we can say that the answer is yes.

Skimmers, transports, and flyers are the only vehicles you see anymore. This is because they can jink, are extremely cheap, or require 6's to hit.

Thank you.

The problem is that a vehicle, translated into an MC, even with a higher points cost, is fething awesome.

Consider the following: A Leman Russ is 150 points standard, it comes with a battlecannon and a heavy bolter.

Translating front armour to toughness makes it T10, and giving it average 'mental' stats for the faction makes it WS3, BS3, I3, LD7.

I'd say strength 5 is conservative, and we won't even give it an armour save. I think A1 is also appropriately conservative.

keep 3 wounds = hull points.

The Leman Russ is now identical, except:
It can fire it's main gun and heavy bolter without snap firing.
It can now fire overwatch.
It now is less vulnerable to instantaneous destruction.
It is now able to fight back in close combat.
It is now able to move through terrain without immobilizing itself, ever.
It is now able to claim cover simply for touching it.
It no longer has any vulnerable facings which must be protected.
It now gets the extra mobility for being able to declare charges.
It can now smash and has AP2 close combat attacks.
It now has Hammer of Wrath.

40% more points translates to 60 more points (out of 150, if I am not mistaken that's roughly the case). So 210 points for all that improvement!

feth YES!

I feel the sniper rules need to be reworked as well then they could have more of their niche dealing with mc/gmc and stuff.

 vipoid wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

Walking. The video name says they're walking. Not running.

I've seen a video of a giraffe chasing a car along a dirt road, and keeping up.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Ever seen videos of elephants or hippos fleeing/reacting to predators?
Those things are scary fast for their bulk.

A couple of points:

1) Yes, they can put on a turn of speed, but there's a reason they rarely do so - in that they can't maintain that speed.

Neither can anything else. Cheetahs can maintain speed for half a minute IIRC.

Elephants, hippos, rhinos are fast. There's a reason for that -- they have large strides because... they are large.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Get in a race with a hamster and see who wins.

http://www.speedofanimals.com

Naw wrote:
http://www.speedofanimals.com

garden snail top speed 0 mph, feels like 1.7 mph. Does it feel sliding over rotating Earth?

Anywayz, back to topic. MC used to be pretty meh when they had 4+ armor at best. It's the power escalation and vehicle rule change that ended up with mc having generally better rules: no damage table, easier cover access, armor saves. This issue can be usually be addressed by simple point adjustment. However, this point adjustment will inevitably get screwed the next time they change core rules for mc and vehicles. So, GW just gives your naughts +2 extra attacks.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The problem is that a vehicle, translated into an MC, even with a higher points cost, is fething awesome.

Consider the following: A Leman Russ is 150 points standard, it comes with a battlecannon and a heavy bolter.

Translating front armour to toughness makes it T10, and giving it average 'mental' stats for the faction makes it WS3, BS3, I3, LD7.

I'd say strength 5 is conservative, and we won't even give it an armour save. I think A1 is also appropriately conservative.

keep 3 wounds = hull points.

The Leman Russ is now identical, except:
It can fire it's main gun and heavy bolter without snap firing.
It can now fire overwatch.
It now is less vulnerable to instantaneous destruction.
It is now able to fight back in close combat.
It is now able to move through terrain without immobilizing itself, ever.
It is now able to claim cover simply for touching it.
It no longer has any vulnerable facings which must be protected.
It now gets the extra mobility for being able to declare charges.
It can now smash and has AP2 close combat attacks.
It now has Hammer of Wrath.

40% more points translates to 60 more points (out of 150, if I am not mistaken that's roughly the case). So 210 points for all that improvement!

feth YES!

Weapon stabilizers are a thing that exist right now. Tanks can move and fire with accuracy.
Why shouldn't it be able to fire at least the heavy bolters/sponson weapons in Overwatch? After all, there are people/servitors/targeting systems inside the tank operating those weapons.
It's a tank. There should be very, very few things that are able to one-shot it.
A tank should definitely be able to fight back in CQC. How? Throw that SOB into reverse and floor it. CRUNCH! Mount anti-personnel mines on the hull (like we do IRL). BOOM! Electrify the outer hull. ZAP! Poison gas canisters. Hull-mounted flamers. There's a hundred ways a tank could engage enemy forces in close combat.
Most anything on tracks doesn't give much of a feth about terrain unless said terrain is a minefield or heavy forest. You could easily append a rule to terrain (or to tracked vehicles) to make this distinction from things that actually walk (though an MC should also be affected by certain terrain). Same thing with cover (though a tank in a forest has both Cover and Concealment, and a low wall is protecting the tank's tracks, arguably the weakest area in their construction).
Tanks can charge things. Again, point the tank in the direction you want to go and floor it.
You can append rules to tanks to remove Smash and AP2 CC attacks, instead replacing them with "Defensive Systems" or something that permits it to attack in CC using the profiles of its sponson-mounted weapons, or a base number of S whatever attacks to represent the crew firing out of gun-ports or whatever.
It's a multi-ton armored vehicle. If it runs into you at high speed? That's brutal. HOW only makes sense.

 Psienesis wrote:
There should be very, very few things that are able to one-shot it.

Not sure about that. This is the 41st millennium we're talking about, so I'd expect to see quite a lot of powerful weapons flying around.

That being said, it is rather weird that units in melee always get to hit the rear armour. Especially when they cause damage that seems impossible from the side they were on.

 Psienesis wrote:

A tank should definitely be able to fight back in CQC. How? Throw that SOB into reverse and floor it. CRUNCH!

Honestly though, I have similar feelings when something manages to charge one of my DE vehicles. Could the crew not just zip away?

 Psienesis wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The problem is that a vehicle, translated into an MC, even with a higher points cost, is fething awesome.

Consider the following: A Leman Russ is 150 points standard, it comes with a battlecannon and a heavy bolter.

Translating front armour to toughness makes it T10, and giving it average 'mental' stats for the faction makes it WS3, BS3, I3, LD7.

I'd say strength 5 is conservative, and we won't even give it an armour save. I think A1 is also appropriately conservative.

keep 3 wounds = hull points.

The Leman Russ is now identical, except:
It can fire it's main gun and heavy bolter without snap firing.
It can now fire overwatch.
It now is less vulnerable to instantaneous destruction.
It is now able to fight back in close combat.
It is now able to move through terrain without immobilizing itself, ever.
It is now able to claim cover simply for touching it.
It no longer has any vulnerable facings which must be protected.
It now gets the extra mobility for being able to declare charges.
It can now smash and has AP2 close combat attacks.
It now has Hammer of Wrath.

40% more points translates to 60 more points (out of 150, if I am not mistaken that's roughly the case). So 210 points for all that improvement!

feth YES!

Weapon stabilizers are a thing that exist right now. Tanks can move and fire with accuracy.
Why shouldn't it be able to fire at least the heavy bolters/sponson weapons in Overwatch? After all, there are people/servitors/targeting systems inside the tank operating those weapons.
It's a tank. There should be very, very few things that are able to one-shot it.
A tank should definitely be able to fight back in CQC. How? Throw that SOB into reverse and floor it. CRUNCH! Mount anti-personnel mines on the hull (like we do IRL). BOOM! Electrify the outer hull. ZAP! Poison gas canisters. Hull-mounted flamers. There's a hundred ways a tank could engage enemy forces in close combat.
Most anything on tracks doesn't give much of a feth about terrain unless said terrain is a minefield or heavy forest. You could easily append a rule to terrain (or to tracked vehicles) to make this distinction from things that actually walk (though an MC should also be affected by certain terrain). Same thing with cover (though a tank in a forest has both Cover and Concealment, and a low wall is protecting the tank's tracks, arguably the weakest area in their construction).
Tanks can charge things. Again, point the tank in the direction you want to go and floor it.
You can append rules to tanks to remove Smash and AP2 CC attacks, instead replacing them with "Defensive Systems" or something that permits it to attack in CC using the profiles of its sponson-mounted weapons, or a base number of S whatever attacks to represent the crew firing out of gun-ports or whatever.
It's a multi-ton armored vehicle. If it runs into you at high speed? That's brutal. HOW only makes sense.

I completely agree with you. My post was meant to illustrate the power disparity between vehicles and MCs.

 vipoid wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
There should be very, very few things that are able to one-shot it.

Not sure about that. This is the 41st millennium we're talking about, so I'd expect to see quite a lot of powerful weapons flying around.

That being said, it is rather weird that units in melee always get to hit the rear armour. Especially when they cause damage that seems impossible from the side they were on.

 Psienesis wrote:

A tank should definitely be able to fight back in CQC. How? Throw that SOB into reverse and floor it. CRUNCH!

Honestly though, I have similar feelings when something manages to charge one of my DE vehicles. Could the crew not just zip away?

Said weapons one-shotting a 90-ton tank should have similar effects against a giant bug, a giant suit of mecha-transformer-armor, a ghost-driven suit of magic plastic, or anything else, really. Anti-armor weapons are actually pretty damned good at killing lightly-armored targets, too.

 Psienesis wrote:

Said weapons one-shotting a 90-ton tank should have similar effects against a giant bug, a giant suit of mecha-transformer-armor, a ghost-driven suit of magic plastic, or anything else, really. Anti-armor weapons are actually pretty damned good at killing lightly-armored targets, too.

True.

It'd be nice if the rules reflected that to some extent. As it is, you need a lot more melta to kill a MC then you will against most tanks (unless they jink).

Eternal Warrior feels rather out of place these days.

I guess it just seems weird that an ID weapon will strip d3 wounds off a Gargantuan Creature, but will only ever cause one to a tiny character.