How do you feel about tanks?

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.

**Unit1126PLL**

Honestly, I'd rather drop wounds and hull points and go back to the 5th/4th way of doing things.

Tanks shouldn't really have wounds or hull-points; real life tanks don't suddenly just fall apart as soon as enough damage is caused to them.

Usually, a modern tank is abandoned or destroyed after some critical piece of equipment is destroyed or disabled, which I think is reflected well enough in some form of damage table.

**Overlord Thraka**

I agree vehicles are too weak. HP is too low on most of them. And I have yet to see a vehicle declared OP. Now there are some I think should be left as is, (coughlandraidercough) as certain armies (coughorkscough) have trouble dealing with them. That being said. fewer high str weapons would also improve vehicles to more than support. I'd love to start atanks guard army, but my opponents would be able to pack on about 20 high str weapons in a 1500 point game. I think that that can be bit much for say, a battlewagon rush, or Trukk rush to deal with. vEhicles are weak and need a buff bad.

**PrinceRaven**

Overlord Thraka wrote:
I agree vehicles are too weak. HP is too low on most of them. And I have yet to see a vehicle declared OP.

What rock have you been hiding under? Have you seriously never heard of Wave Serpents? Annihilation Barges? Flyers?

**Jimsolo**

As a player whose main armies are Drop Pod Salamanders and Raider Rush Dark Eldar, the vehicle changes either A) benefited me immensely or B) had a minimal impact on me. I love the new rules! Hull points are delightful. I can't count the number of games I lost prior to sixth at the hands of one or more monoliths hovering around the battlefield being for-all-intents-and-purposes-unkillable. Vehicles needed to be brought down a little bit, and hull points did a delightful job of it--in most cases. That being said, my opinion can't be remotely considered impartial, so take that for what it's worth.

Walkers got the shaft. The new vehicle rules didn't do them any favors, and I think a little tweaking of their rules might be necessary.

**Engine of War**

Not useless....

especially when I have so many more of them.

Oh you have invul saves? MAKE THAT 20+ TIMES MORE.

14+ armor? multiple structure points? Say good bye!
Oh a Titan you say? What titan?

As for vehicles and tanks in general not surviving CQC just imagine the assaulting melee unit jumping onto the tank and bashing it open. the tank can't fight back, it has no arms...

But if a tank got into CQC that's more the tank commanders fault... so long as they stay back they are fine.

**Unit1126PLL**

Engine of War wrote:

As for vehicles and tanks in general not surviving CQC just imagine the assaulting melee unit jumping onto the tank and bashing it open. the tank can't fight back, it has no arms...

But if a tank got into CQC that's more the tank commanders fault... so long as they stay back they are fine.

I find it hilarious that using 40k rules, lumberjacks with chainsaws would be better against Tiger Tanks than what we were using.

After all, a normal, unaugmented human is Str 3.

The hull on a Leman Russ is adamantium/plasteel (depending on source), so the hull on a Tiger, being regular steel, would be AV9 or less on the rear (considering an LRBT is 10).

A normal human, armed with a chainsaw and pistol, could destroy a Tiger tank with a good solid charge in 40k.

**BrianDavion**

I like hull points in theory, as it made killing tanks something you didn't basicly need Meltas for (5th edition vees had a very "go melta or go home" feel too it) and I like that you don't get too screwed by glances (your tanks may last less rounds but everyround they're presumably doing something)

you know now that I think about it, maybe the problem isn't hull points, or the damage table etc...

maybe the problem is glancing hits...

**Sparkadia**

I just dislike that Skimmers get a free save 'just because' and ignore terrain unlike other vehicles that actually need to pass through it rather than over it. It never feels quite like all the advantages of being a Skimmer are included in the points costs (see; AnniBarges. Wave Serpents)

**-Loki-**

My personal opinion of tanks in 40k is they make delightful grinding sound when my monstrous creatures trample all over them.

**Dheneb**

BrianDavion wrote:
I like hull points in theory, as it made killing tanks something you didn't basicly need Meltas for (5th edition vees had a very "go melta or go home" feel too it) and I like that you don't get too screwed by glances (your tanks may last less rounds but everyround they're presumably doing something)

you know now that I think about it, maybe the problem isn't hull points, or the damage table etc...

maybe the problem is glancing hits...

Maybe have the attacker roll over their hull points when they get a glancing hit? Gives them a sort-of armour save against glances.

**BrianDavion**

Dheneb wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
I like hull points in theory, as it made killing tanks something you didn't basicly need Meltas for (5th edition vees had a very "go melta or go home" feel too it) and I like that you don't get too screwed by glances (your tanks may last less rounds but everyround they're presumably doing something)

you know now that I think about it, maybe the problem isn't hull points, or the damage table etc...

maybe the problem is glancing hits...

Maybe have the attacker roll over their hull points when they get a glancing hit? Gives them a sort-of armour save against glances.

not a bad idea course the only "problem" with this is super heavies effectivly become immune to glances. as only the knight would be glanceable on a 6

**BlaxicanX**

I think hull-points should stay, but glances need to go away. Penetrating hits roll on the damage chart, but also automatically knock off a hull-point. This enhances vehicle durability but prevents the 5E shenanigans where a tank could be pen'd 5 times and walk it off each time with lucky rolls.

Another alternative would be to keep glances, but have them no longer take off hull-points. Instead, when a vehicle is successfully glanced, the user must roll on the damage table, with the caveat that there is no "Explodes!" result for glances. Instead, the "Crew Shaken" result is on a roll of 1-3, Stunned on a 4, Weapon destroyed on a 5 and Immobilized on a 6.

**Unit1126PLL**

BlaxicanX wrote:
I think hull-points should stay, but glances need to go away. Penetrating hits roll on the damage chart, but also automatically knock off a hull-point. This enhances vehicle durability but prevents the 5E shenanigans where a tank could be pen'd 5 times and walk it off each time with lucky rolls.

Another alternative would be to keep glances, but have them no longer take off hull-points. Instead, when a vehicle is successfully glanced, the user must roll on the damage table, with the caveat that there is no "Explodes!" result for glances. Instead, the "Crew Shaken" result is on a roll of 1-3, Stunned on a 4, Weapon destroyed on a 5 and Immobilized on a 6.

I actually liked 5th edition's damage chart as far as realism goes. A tank being lucky enough with just "walking off" five penetrating hits means, in 5th ed, you rolled five 1s and 2s after pens. That's incredibly unlikely. And it's not unheard of in the real world for shells to penetrate a tank's armor but fail to meaningfully harm the vehicle.

Reading some WWII memoirs I remember reading about an 88m round from a Tiger going through the front of a T-34 and coming to rest between the driver's feet. The tank continued to fight.

**Kramanal**

Engine of War wrote:

Not useless....

especially when I have so many more of them.

Oh you have invul saves? MAKE THAT 20+ TIMES MORE.

As for vehicles and tanks in general not surviving CQC just imagine the assaulting melee unit jumping onto the tank and bashing it open. the tank can't fight back, it has no arms...

But if a tank got into CQC that's more the tank commanders fault... so long as they stay back they are fine.

Love your conversions, especially the twin barelled MK1 Tiger, the Royal Tiger and your Elephant!

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Unit1126PLL wrote:
Engine of War wrote:

As for vehicles and tanks in general not surviving CQC just imagine the assaulting melee unit jumping onto the tank and bashing it open. the tank can't fight back, it has no arms...

But if a tank got into CQC that's more the tank commanders fault... so long as they stay back they are fine.

I find it hilarious that using 40k rules, lumberjacks with chainsaws would be better against Tiger Tanks than what we were using.

After all, a normal, unaugmented human is Str 3.

The hull on a Leman Russ is adamantium/plasteel (depending on source), so the hull on a Tiger, being regular steel, would be AV9 or less on the rear (considering an LRBT is 10).

A normal human, armed with a chainsaw and pistol, could destroy a Tiger tank with a good solid charge in 40k.

Human ingenuity can kill big, scary metal things, read about how unarmed schoolchildren with dinner plates, washing up liquid and ironbars killed IS8's and IS10's in Budapest in '56! Remember these were the Red monster tanks that paniced us so much we built the Conquerer and the Yanks built that monstrosity, (M103 with 120mm if I remember correctly). The Hungarian people killed them in CC! Just like IG with Krak, they just needed guts (and loads of bodies).

**Vaktathi**

BlaxicanX wrote:
I think hull-points should stay, but glances need to go away. Penetrating hits roll on the damage chart, but also automatically knock off a hull-point. This enhances vehicle durability but prevents the 5E shenanigans where a tank could be pen'd 5 times and walk it off each time with lucky rolls.

That's no different than a Marine making 5 saves in a row, happens but incredibly unlikely. If you pen'd a tank 5 times in 5E and it could "walk it off", your rolling was very statistically off. On average, that thing would be dead.

In 5th ed, vehicle survivability wasn't an issue for the vast majority of vehicles, nobody complained about the survivability of most tanks. Things like Hellhounds, Devilfish, Leman Russ tanks, Land Raiders, Predators, Battlewagons, etc were too hard to kill, it was 35pt rhinos packing assault troops.

**PrinceRaven**

The issue I found with vehicles in 5th wasn't that they couldn't be killed by pens, it was that glances were next to worthless.

**Murdius Maximus**

Bladed Crescent wrote:
madric wrote:
I think the OP is spot on in identifying major issues with the rules.

I think tanks should be able to pick as many targets as they have gunners (persons or computer guidance). E.g. a tank with 3 weapons and 1 gunner can only effectively target 1 unit at a time. Whereas a target with 1 main gun, and side sponsons, each with a gunner, can target 3 separate targets.

This is interesting. We could say that a vehicle can target X different units a turn - this represents the number of crew, skill of the crew at responding to threats, the technology used in the vehicle, number of guns, etc.

For example, we'd see Leman Russ
Type: Tank, Heavy
Target Capability: 2

This would mean that all the Leman Russ's guns can fire at two different targets - the controlling player can decide which two and which weapons are firing. Like lascannon and battlecannon fire on a Monstrous creature in the distance and the heavy stubber and heavy bolters can fire on a troop squad closer to the tank. It wouldn't effect how many guns can fire or if they're Snapshotting or not, but it would give vehicles a little more flexibility in loadouts and tactics.

The Leman Russ can have up to 5 weapons, so this would represent "mere" humans in a rugged, jack-of-all-trades vehicle. Most vehicles would be able to fire at two different targets; only the really big/advanced ones could do more. You could have something like an Ork battlewagon that could choose to fire on a different target with each gun, to represent the crew just blazing away at anything and everything.

Space Marine vehicles with Power of the Machine Spirit (and Chaos Space Marine vehicles with Infernal Device grumble grumble) would function the same - regardless of how far/fast the vehicle moves, it can engage an additional target with one weapon at normal NS.

Machine Spirit targeting computer. 1 guy=shoot everything! I disagree with the targets vs gunners thing as it's just another way to muck up the rules. To me this is another case of totally overthinking a game. I totally agree with tanks having more Hull Points, and it would give them more weight, but the other rules as they are now, to me, are fine.

**vadersson**

Hey gang,

Just to provide the opinion of a new player...

I just played my first game ever the other day. We only went two turns, but it convinced me that vehicles are pretty worthless. First turn a single las cannon blew up a Hellbrute in one shot. (Killed a few cultists too.) 2nd Turn a single Fusion Blaster blew up a full Rhino in one shot. Their 2nd turn saw our dreadnought go up from a single shot too. All three vehicles killed in 2 turns and all from single shots. WTF? Make me change from looking for a Hammerhead to wanting a Broadside suit.

I agree fully that vehicles seem a but under powered. Hope they get an upgrade at some point.

Thanks,
Duncan

**PrinceRaven**

Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal. Just because you had a 3 one-shots in one game doesn't mean Vehicles are fragile as paper and always die from one shot.

Hellbrutes and dreadnoughts are overpriced rubbish anyway.

**Zarynterk**

PrinceRaven wrote:
Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal. Just because you had a 3 one-shots in one game doesn't mean Vehicles are fragile as paper and always die from one shot.

Hellbrutes and dreadnoughts are overpriced rubbish anyway.

Agreed... I've blown half a guys army off the board with three manticores in a game on round one. Doesn't mean I will ever roll dice that well again or that they will ever be that effective again lol.

**Murdius Maximus**

vadersson wrote:
Hey gang,

Just to provide the opinion of a new player...

I just played my first game ever the other day. We only went two turns, but it convinced me that vehicles are pretty worthless. First turn a single las cannon blew up a Hellbrute in one shot. (Killed a few cultists too.) 2nd Turn a single Fusion Blaster blew up a full Rhino in one shot. Their 2nd turn saw our dreadnought go up from a single shot too. All three vehicles killed in 2 turns and all from single shots. WTF? Make me change from looking for a Hammerhead to wanting a Broadside suit.

I agree fully that vehicles seem a but under powered. Hope they get an upgrade at some point.

Thanks,
Duncan

Yeah Hellbrutes and Rhinos are HORRIBLE examples of armor to base against the whole. They are pretty much autokill vehicles for me. I love them because I can gak them so very easily. You won't have that problem with all vehicles. I feel like they die so quick because of the firepower that they attract. I usually aim for vehicles first because I don't want them running around the field making a mess of things.

**Vaktathi**

PrinceRaven wrote:
The issue I found with vehicles in 5th wasn't that they couldn't be killed by pens, it was that glances were next to worthless.

For cheap transports who's only job was to go from point A to point B, sure. A glance for a gun-tank meant a 5/6 chance that it either wasn't doing anything or was going to have its firepower reduced/removed, and the 1/6 chance that meant it could still fire meant it would be immobilized. The problem again, was 35pt transports full of assault troops.

**PrinceRaven**

35 point transports filled with troops that managed to capture objective just by being parked nearby.
It also didn't help that I was playing Tyranids and thus had to rely on close ranged firepower that usually only glanced or catching the vehicles in CC, since I could not field 20 48" range strength 9 ap 2 shots to deal with the razorback spam meta.

**Unit1126PLL**

PrinceRaven wrote:
The issue I found with vehicles in 5th wasn't that they couldn't be killed by pens, it was that glances were next to worthless.

I think that glancing hits were a bit too problematic in 5th - most of the results made a main battle tank useless for the next turn.

I would think that a glancing it (that is to say, a hit that failed to penetrate the armor of the tank) could certainly do damage, but it should not be guaranteed to cripple the tank for an entire turn. Take the 5th edition damage chart -2, like you do, except instead of having "everything below 1 is shaken" just say that any result below 1 is no effect.

**BlaxicanX**

Vaktathi wrote:
BlaxicanX wrote:
I think hull-points should stay, but glances need to go away. Penetrating hits roll on the damage chart, but also automatically knock off a hull-point. This enhances vehicle durability but prevents the 5E shenanigans where a tank could be pen'd 5 times and walk it off each time with lucky rolls.
That's no different than a Marine making 5 saves in a row, happens but incredibly unlikely. If you pen'd a tank 5 times in 5E and it could "walk it off", your rolling was very statistically off. On average, that thing would be dead.

It's uh... it's hyperbole, man.

In 5th ed, vehicle survivability wasn't an issue for the vast majority of vehicles, nobody complained about the survivability of most tanks. Things like Hellhounds, Devilfish, Leman Russ tanks, Land Raiders, Predators, Battlewagons, etc were too hard to kill, it was 35pt rhinos packing assault troops.

I'm assuming you meant to say "weren't" too hard to kill. People complained quite a bit, as far as I'm aware. The term "parking lot" did not have a positive connotation.

**Galorian**

I say beef up HP a bit and add damage table modifiers to vehicle types-
Tank: -1 to damage table results
Heavy: -1 to damage table results

Maybe move all results on the damage table one point up and make a result of 1 be nothing happens (just lose an HP).

**Vaktathi**

BlaxicanX wrote:

It's uh... it's hyperbole, man.

Without which vehicles died pretty routinely.

I'm assuming you meant to say "weren't" too hard to kill.

Yes

People complained quite a bit, as far as I'm aware. The term "parking lot" did not have a positive connotation.

Which were universally built around large numbers of cheap transports, as I noted.