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. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/01/05 10:10:55
Subject: Did tanks become statistcally easier to kill?
|
 |
Imperial Guard Landspeeder Pilot
On moon miranda.
|
Personally (and having run IG armies that usually ran 15-17 tanks in a 2k list) I never really found it to be super common.
Sure, the "glance once, move on" happened, I'm not saying it didn't, but more commonly it'd get glanced multiple times from similar attacks (e.g. a full round of bolter fire into the side of a chimera typically resulting in 2 glances) or someone would concentrate fire to make something dead, or the weapons being thrown around had relatively higher chances to penetrate than glance (e.g. lascannon vs AV12, meltagun vs anything, autocannon vs AV11, etc) making it a minority result. So yeah, it happened, but it was more of a "oh, well, that single glance is all it did? well, whatever, I can live with that, lets put the other gun into the next tank" than a routine result.
Now, while yes, the effects of penetrating would often leave tanks sitting around, 6th is largely identical in that regard, and makes them dead much faster if they shoot it more than once.
Really, the tanks shouldn't really be firing much more unless they're really just taking that one glancing hit, more than that and it's likely dead and if they're penetrates then there's not much difference from 5th aside from that they won't die as easily on the first or second hits but are certain to die on the third. So basically, unless one's opponents are just incapable of concentrating firepower or lack to weapons to do so, there shouldn't be any drastic increase in average vehicle shooting, and quite often, instead of being shaken/stunned, they'll just be dead instead.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/01/05 10:12:42
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights!
The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/01/05 10:13:12
Subject: Re:Did tanks become statistcally easier to kill?
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Vaktathi wrote:tanks sitting on the table for a majority shaken/stunned as a result of glancing hits and *nobody* manages penetrates?
Yeah, welcome to missile launchers/psycannons vs. russes and autocannons vs. chimeras.
It's almost as if you missed that phase where guard players fetishized autocannons as the end-all-be-all of anti-tank.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/01/05 10:13:53
Subject: Re:Did tanks become statistcally easier to kill?
|
 |
Fresh-Faced New User
|
To my feeling;
Light verhicles became easier to kill,
Heavy ones harder.
You need to fully take off all the hullpoints of a14, without the chance of a lucky wrecked;
while for light vehicles (let's say ork buggy) they could survive with a weapon off & shaken, etc for a while, but now auto-wreck.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/01/05 10:21:31
Subject: Re:Did tanks become statistcally easier to kill?
|
 |
Imperial Guard Landspeeder Pilot
On moon miranda.
|
Ailaros wrote:Vaktathi wrote:tanks sitting on the table for a majority shaken/stunned as a result of glancing hits and *nobody* manages penetrates?
Yeah, welcome to missile launchers/psycannons vs. russes and autocannons vs. chimeras.
If you were tossing ML's at Russ tanks they generally were desperation weapons, it's not their role to engage the heaviest armor, so we're talking about using the wrong tool for a job, but yeah technically that would be true. Psycannons will pen as often as they'll glance Russ tanks, likewise Autocannons vs AV12 so you shouldn't be getting a majority number of glancing hits.
It's almost as if you missed that phase where guard players fetishized autocannons as the end-all-be-all of anti-tank.  they're not glancing more often than they're penetrating, which was my point. You weren't just sitting there doing nothing but inflicting glancing hits, against AV12 vehicles you inflicted a penetrating hit just as often as a glancing hit, and against anything lighter you penetrated significantly more often, while you'd bring bigger guns to bear against anything heavier.
|
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights!
The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/01/05 10:28:55
Subject: Re:Did tanks become statistcally easier to kill?
|
 |
Douglas Bader
|
Vaktathi wrote: they're not glancing more often than they're penetrating, which was my point. You weren't just sitting there doing nothing but inflicting glancing hits, against AV12 vehicles you inflicted a penetrating hit just as often as a glancing hit, and against anything lighter you penetrated significantly more often, while you'd bring bigger guns to bear against anything heavier.
With ACs, maybe, but consider Eldar instead: the weapon of choice was mass STR 6 and it was an awesome anti-vehicle weapon even though it could only glance a Chimera, because glancing a Chimera once a turn was all you needed to remove it from the fight entirely. That's probably the most extreme example, but over and over again in 5th I'd have vehicles take a single damage result every turn for 2-3 turns and sit there uselessly even though they weren't destroyed yet.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/01/05 10:30:51
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/01/05 11:34:10
Subject: Re:Did tanks become statistcally easier to kill?
|
 |
Long-Range Land Speeder Pilot
A small, damp hole somewhere in England
|
The other big factor that's affected many transport vehicles is the change to smoke launchers.
They used to provide your rhinos a turn of pretty good protection against being stopped - now with just a 5+ save it doesn't significantly increase their survivability, and in fact you're generally better off using your shooting phase to move further instead.
|
Follow the White Scars Fifth Brotherhood as they fight in the Yarov sector - battle report #7 against Eldar here! |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/01/06 02:37:42
Subject: Did tanks become statistcally easier to kill?
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
From a player that runs Battlewagons I have to say that I really like the new vehicle damage mechanics.
As a lot of people have pointed out, glancing isn't going to stop my BW from doing what I need it to do (get my Nobz or Burnaboyz what have you into the enemy lines).
Last edition was brutal vis glancing and being open topped.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/01/06 06:36:37
Subject: Re:Did tanks become statistcally easier to kill?
|
 |
Bane Lord Tartar Sauce
|
My impression so far has been that vehicles with an armor less than 13 are less durable, and vehicles with armor 13 or 14 are about the same as they were in terms of survivability against anybody who isn't playing Gauss Necrons, if slightly weaker. Vehicles are also more effective while they are still around, a tank that now may get 3 turns of shooting before being wrecked in the past would have maybe gotten one or two turns of shooting before being destroyed. Additionally, as more of a metagame note, more players are switching to medium strength weaponry (ie, S5 to S7) with a volume of fire to take down vehicles, rather than relying on high-strength weapons (S8+), making AV13 and 14 significantly more durable.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/01/06 07:25:11
Subject: Did tanks become statistcally easier to kill?
|
 |
Honored Helliarch on Hypex
|
In particular, melta weaponry has gotten more scarce. Time will tell how far that particular trend goes, though.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/01/06 07:50:40
Subject: Did tanks become statistcally easier to kill?
|
 |
Heroic Senior Officer
|
Corollax wrote:In particular, melta weaponry has gotten more scarce. Time will tell how far that particular trend goes, though.
Wow really? In my area people are spamming them harder than ever. It's pretty much the only reliable way they've found to kill russes, which all of the IG players around here are quite fond of. Not to mention they rip MC's to shreds and make good anti termi weapons as well.
|
'I've played Guard for years, and the best piece of advice is to always utilize the Guard's best special rule: "we roll more dice than you" ' - stormleader
"Sector Imperialis: 25mm and 40mm Round Bases (40+20) 26€ (Including 32 skulls for basing) " GW design philosophy in a nutshell |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/01/06 12:20:38
Subject: Did tanks become statistcally easier to kill?
|
 |
Ladies Love the Vibro-Cannon Operator
|
They are. A worst-case example is a Falcon with holofield, which was almost impossible to kill in the 4th ed.
Now three glancing hits and a Falcon can be gone. The holofield will have no effect whatsoever. Okay a Falcon that moved has a jink save but this is not really a life saver.
|
Former moderator 40kOnline
Lanchester's square law - please obey in list building!
Illumini: "And thank you for not finishing your post with a " " I'm sorry, but after 7200 's that has to be the most annoying sign-off ever."
Armies: Eldar, Necrons, Blood Angels, Grey Knights; World Eaters (30k); Bloodbound; Cryx, Circle, Cyriss |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/01/06 13:02:35
Subject: Did tanks become statistcally easier to kill?
|
 |
Deranged Necron Destroyer
|
yes and no, an army capable of lots of glancing or AP1 will kill them faster, but tanks arent prone to stunlocking anymore like they used to.
|
You have ruled this galaxy for ten thousand years
Yet have little of account to show for your efforts
Order. Unity. Obedience.
We taught the galaxy these things
And we shall do so again.
4500 pts
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/01/06 13:10:05
Subject: Did tanks become statistcally easier to kill?
|
 |
Dark Angels Librarian with Book of Secrets
|
MrMoustaffa wrote:Corollax wrote:In particular, melta weaponry has gotten more scarce. Time will tell how far that particular trend goes, though.
Wow really? In my area people are spamming them harder than ever. .
In my local meta (New England Area), I've not seen much melta at all. Maybe 1-2 per army.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/01/06 14:55:14
Subject: Re:Did tanks become statistcally easier to kill?
|
 |
Incubus
|
I have a few imperial guard players in the area, so personally, everything that can have a melta on it, is GOING to have a melta on it. That means pihranas, crisis suits, not to mention railguns. Personally, if something has armor, penning it will be quicker to kill it than glancing it in my list!(Ap1 or 2 provides +1 to the pen damage table, 1/3 chance per pen, 5/9 chance 2nd time of occuring once, land raiders are overcosted against these guys, HP 4 will not save you)
|
Quote from chromedog
and 40k was like McDonalds - you could get it anywhere - it wouldn't necessarily satisfy, but it was probably better than nothing.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/01/06 16:59:03
Subject: Re:Did tanks become statistcally easier to kill?
|
 |
Shas'o Commanding the Hunter Kadre
|
Tanks with lower armor values became easier to kill, tanks with higher armor values became harder to kill, but only by a bit.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/01/06 17:56:46
Subject: Did tanks become statistcally easier to kill?
|
 |
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter
|
I'd love to do the precise calculations, but I just got a new computer that doesn't have Excel yet, so that'll have to wait; statistically, tanks got more vulnerable to mid-Strength weapons, lascannons and such are mostly unchanged.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/01/06 19:07:17
Subject: Re:Did tanks become statistcally easier to kill?
|
 |
Ichor-Dripping Talos Monstrosity
|
FoWPlayerDeathOfUS.TDs wrote:I have a few imperial guard players in the area, so personally, everything that can have a melta on it, is GOING to have a melta on it. That means pihranas, crisis suits, not to mention railguns. Personally, if something has armor, penning it will be quicker to kill it than glancing it in my list!(Ap1 or 2 provides +1 to the pen damage table, 1/3 chance per pen, 5/9 chance 2nd time of occuring once, land raiders are overcosted against these guys, HP 4 will not save you)
AP1 gives +2 now.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/01/06 20:33:05
Subject: Did tanks become statistcally easier to kill?
|
 |
Warplord Titan Princeps of Tzeentch
|
Some tanks got easier, some got harder.
If anyone doubts some has gotten harder, I challenge him to fight a triple-hammerhead list, these bastereds are too hard to drop for people to even try any more.
|
can neither confirm nor deny I lost track of what I've got right now. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/01/06 21:29:02
Subject: Re:Did tanks become statistcally easier to kill?
|
 |
Dark Angels Librarian with Book of Secrets
|
It's about using the right tool for the job. Flying MCs will sort those hammerheads right out.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/01/06 21:57:33
Subject: Did tanks become statistcally easier to kill?
|
 |
Ichor-Dripping Talos Monstrosity
|
Lots of things will sort the Hammerheads out.
Lascannons, Meltas, pretty much anything making it to CC, things making it within 12".
Hell, anything that's Str7-9 will happily kill it, yes it's tough, but it's also 180-200 points.
I usually lose one or both of my HHs over the course of a game, and they're probably the first targets alongside my broadsides.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/01/06 22:36:03
Subject: Did tanks become statistcally easier to kill?
|
 |
Warplord Titan Princeps of Tzeentch
|
The idea wasn't that it cant be done, just that it cant be done EFFECTIVELY because everything requires much more effort then it takes to actually guard/move the hammerhead from danger.
S7 is not much of a threat to an AV13 with a 3+ save. 8 is not a serious threat either, and 9-10 still require more shots then most people can afford to throw around.
Plus, its 150 bare-bones (railgun and bursts) 175 with every single upgrade that isn't just for giggles, and you usually wont need all on them either (target lock for example is highly optional.) a russ costs as much bare-bones and much more pimped-out. while often being more killy, not nearly as annoying to remove.
Say what you want on the hammerhead's output, he is really hard to drop down.
|
can neither confirm nor deny I lost track of what I've got right now. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/01/06 22:50:31
Subject: Did tanks become statistcally easier to kill?
|
 |
Shas'o Commanding the Hunter Kadre
|
Well with everyone going autocannon happy and forgetting there's higher armor values than 12 in the game, av 13+ are actually better in the current metagame.
And trying to kill a hammerhead with a 3+, sometimes a 2+ cover save is basically impossible unless you get close.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/01/06 23:41:16
Subject: Did tanks become statistcally easier to kill?
|
 |
Nihilistic Necron Lord
The best State-Texas
|
BoomWolf wrote:The idea wasn't that it cant be done, just that it cant be done EFFECTIVELY because everything requires much more effort then it takes to actually guard/move the hammerhead from danger.
S7 is not much of a threat to an AV13 with a 3+ save. 8 is not a serious threat either, and 9-10 still require more shots then most people can afford to throw around.
Plus, its 150 bare-bones (railgun and bursts) 175 with every single upgrade that isn't just for giggles, and you usually wont need all on them either (target lock for example is highly optional.) a russ costs as much bare-bones and much more pimped-out. while often being more killy, not nearly as annoying to remove.
Say what you want on the hammerhead's output, he is really hard to drop down.
Yeah, but at the end of the day, it's still Tau. They need everything they can get right now.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/01/07 00:17:29
Subject: Did tanks become statistcally easier to kill?
|
 |
Imperial Guard Landspeeder Pilot
On moon miranda.
|
BoomWolf wrote:Some tanks got easier, some got harder.
If anyone doubts some has gotten harder, I challenge him to fight a triple-hammerhead list, these bastereds are too hard to drop for people to even try any more.
With the 3+ cover save, believe it or not, that gives them about the same expected lifespan as they'd have in 5E.
Lascannon in 5th with no cover
33% pen, 33% chance to kill, 1/9 chance to destroy, so 9 hits.
Lascannon in 5th when over 12" away (so 4+ cover)
33% pen, 50% save, 33% kill, 1/18 chance to destroy, 18 hits.
6th, under 12"
We have the same chance to pen and kill but we've got HP's on top of that that will do it in 6 hits.
Over 12" away with 3+ cover
27 hits to kill on a pen, but only 18 to kill through HP's, so through HP's it's no different than 5th but you still have a chance to kill through penetrations, so your average number of hits required to kill it is significantly less than even 5th with a 4+ cover.
So yeah, even with their 3+ cover, Hammerheads are actually easier to kill in 6th. That's not even getting into close combat odds.
|
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights!
The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/01/07 00:33:17
Subject: Did tanks become statistcally easier to kill?
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Vehicles are nerfed in 6th. I have no issue with LRs when using Psyflemen. Somethings wrong with that.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/01/07 03:36:26
Subject: Did tanks become statistcally easier to kill?
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
juraigamer wrote:Well with everyone going autocannon happy and forgetting there's higher armor values than 12 in the game, av 13+ are actually better in the current metagame.
And this is rather important.
Whether or not vehicles individually got more difficult to kill or not, everyone around me seems to be bringing more lascannons than they did before. That people are needing to bring more, better anti-tank certainly has something to say about vehicles in general.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/01/07 11:33:59
Subject: Did tanks become statistcally easier to kill?
|
 |
Dark Angels Librarian with Book of Secrets
|
juraigamer wrote:Well with everyone going autocannon happy and forgetting there's higher armor values than 12 in the game, av 13+ are actually better in the current metagame. .
This.
This change has made things like soul grinders, predators, vindicators, LRBTs much better -- simply because less people have the tools to deal with them.
|
|
 |
 |
|