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.

 mekugi wrote:
Don't forget vortex grenades. We had to have an armistice whereby we limited their use...They were so brutal back in 2nd ed.

What happened in 2nd ed?

I rarely used Grenades in general. I didn't even know they existed until 5th edition.
(Playing Since Eye of Terror)

 Asherian Command wrote:

 mekugi wrote:
Don't forget vortex grenades. We had to have an armistice whereby we limited their use...They were so brutal back in 2nd ed.

What happened in 2nd ed?

I rarely used Grenades in general. I didn't even know they existed until 5th edition.
(Playing Since Eye of Terror)

IIRC, they were basically the same as they were in the original Appoc rules, but you could have more than 1. And you could get Vortex missiles for your Space marine missile launchers.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

 mekugi wrote:
Don't forget vortex grenades. We had to have an armistice whereby we limited their use...They were so brutal back in 2nd ed.

What happened in 2nd ed?

I rarely used Grenades in general. I didn't even know they existed until 5th edition.
(Playing Since Eye of Terror)

IIRC, they were basically the same as they were in the original Appoc rules, but you could have more than 1. And you could get Vortex missiles for your Space marine missile launchers.

What. Why did they change.

That actually makes marines kind of viable XD

I remember when I ran my Captain with a vortex Grenade in Apocalypse and just I had him charge a land raider and suicide himself. And then the vortex grenade would wreak havoc throughout my opponents army as every turn a random unit would die from it.

Because 20 marines wiping out their opponent on turn 1 with 20 vortex missiles was bloody broken.

 insaniak wrote:

 zedmeister wrote:
You definitely missed the first 2 40k editions then. Grenades of all types were an excellent short range weapon for all armies back in the day.

Frag Grenades having a 2" blast meant that there was generally very little point ever using Marines' bolt pistols. Once they were in pistol range, you were better off throwing 10 2" blasts at them instead.

To be fair, in real life, if you have grenades and a bunch of clustered enemies or ones in cover, there's very little reason to use pistols.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

 mekugi wrote:
Don't forget vortex grenades. We had to have an armistice whereby we limited their use...They were so brutal back in 2nd ed.

What happened in 2nd ed?

I rarely used Grenades in general. I didn't even know they existed until 5th edition.
(Playing Since Eye of Terror)

IIRC, they were basically the same as they were in the original Appoc rules, but you could have more than 1. And you could get Vortex missiles for your Space marine missile launchers.

Negative.

The Vortex Grenade in 2nd Edition was a single-instance wargear card, and the missile launchers were limited to frag, krak, with melta, anti-plant and plasma as upgrades.

The missile list was slightly larger in Rogue Trader, but never included vortex grenades (actually specifically excluded them in the original RT book before the game had proper army lists).


So if anyone you knew was spamming vortex missiles, they were probably cheating, lol.

Negative.

The Vortex Grenade in 2nd Edition was a single-instance wargear card, and the missile launchers were limited to frag, krak, with melta, anti-plant and plasma as upgrades.

The missile list was slightly larger in Rogue Trader, but never included vortex grenades (actually specifically excluded them in the original RT book before the game had proper army lists).


So if anyone you knew was spamming vortex missiles, they were probably cheating, lol.

Wait we had inventory cards? WHat WHATTTT.
That sounds kind of awesome.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 the_Armyman wrote:


If I charge a single T3 daemonette with Tac Marines, I have to take a Fear test.

No you don't.

Reread ATSKNF and the Fear rule.

Bad example is bad. Replace the words "Tac Marines" with any other squad of non-fearless, non-ATSKNF infantry in the game to understand my point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 McGibs wrote:
Daemonettes inflicting fear has nothing to do with their T3, but because theyre daemonic entities that are an assault to your senses and mind (also, annoyingly, marines are entirely immune). Walkers and MCs inflict fear because they actively fight back in close combat, crushing infantry underfoot. By comparison, a tank can drive back and forth a little bit. In the context of 40k, that isn't very frightful. In REAL LIFE, yes it could be rather intimidating (though again, that didnt stop close-assault tactic from being extremely effective). But using real life logic, virtually everything in 40k should cause fear and/or pinning to everything else. There's no way in hell I'd want to fight a gretchen or ripper in real life.

Yes, everything in the game is an abstraction. The point I'm trying to make is that troops always assaulting rear armor and hitting on a 3+/auto-hitting is an abstraction that I don't like when it comes to krak grenades. It turns what should be a desperate situation into an attractive option.

I don't think its that bad an abstraction at all. A Guard squad will have to take a Fear test on a lone Demonette because it is a representation of chaotic entity, a denizen of the warp, of which the human mind cannot properly deal with (unless of course there is a Priest behind you singing that the Emperor will protect you!).

On the other hand a Leman Russ for example is a fairly mundane and ordinary thing to come across. Guardsmen see tanks every day. They're not frightening any more than fighting an 8ft tall Power Armoured Super Soldier is. But that is what morale checks are for - if the Guardsmen swarm that tank and fail to destroy, and next turn it drives back and blasts them with it's cannon, they could well end up fleeing due to failed morale.

The Fantasy Flight 40k RPGs had a good implementation of Fear imo. They made a distinction between "ordinary" mundane horrors (such as seeing your squad get blown apart by an artillery barrage for example) and horrors from the Warp or other supernatural sources (eg hearing demonic whispers in your head). You could spec into Talents that could help you in Fear tests from ordinary horrors but they wouldn't work on supernatural ones.

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:

 Big Blind Bill wrote:
They are better represented than they ever have been before - at least they can actually be thrown now.

I see you missed 2nd Edition, lol.

Yes true, I began playing at the start of 3rd edition.

Let me re-phrase then, grenades are better represented now than than they were in 3rd edition and during all the editions since.

I don't know the rules from 2nd ed. so I don''t know if the current rules are better in comparison.

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:
To be fair, in real life, if you have grenades and a bunch of clustered enemies or ones in cover, there's very little reason to use pistols.

Sure. But in real life, I would expect that the situations where the entire squad are hurling grenades at the same time would be rarer...

The 'one grenade thrown per unit' addition in the current rules is one of the few changes I actually like.

The Vortex Grenade in 2nd Edition was a single-instance wargear card,

Although you could have two of them (as there were two cards) and the Inquisition Vortex psychic power (which was more or less the same thing) ... The grenades were somewhat hampered once people found the Vortex Detonator card, though.

Yes, everything in the game is an abstraction. The point I'm trying to make is that troops always assaulting rear armor and hitting on a 3+/auto-hitting is an abstraction that I don't like when it comes to krak grenades. It turns what should be a desperate situation into an attractive option.

My point is that its not a desperate situation. Attacking tanks with close ranged anti-tank weapons is a legitimate and viable way of knocking out armoured vehicles. As I said before, it happened all the time in historical wars, and barring dedicated anti-tank ranged weapons, was the way to do it. All armies since the invention of the tank have had vast varieties of hand thrown, magnetically attached, rifle launched, glue-stickied explosives to deal with tanks up close and personal. Exactly what krak and melta bombs represent in 40k. It's not a last ditch desperate effort, it's a concerted anti-armour tactic.

This is essentially a krak greade. A lot cheaper and lighter to arm a bunch of riflemen with these things, than to have have dedicated two-man rocket teams.


Here's some news footage of insurgents blowing the crap out of fast moving vehicles with hand thrown RKG-3s.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xhv0yv_anti-tank-rkg-3-grenade_news

 Asherian Command wrote:

Negative.

The Vortex Grenade in 2nd Edition was a single-instance wargear card, and the missile launchers were limited to frag, krak, with melta, anti-plant and plasma as upgrades.

The missile list was slightly larger in Rogue Trader, but never included vortex grenades (actually specifically excluded them in the original RT book before the game had proper army lists).


So if anyone you knew was spamming vortex missiles, they were probably cheating, lol.

Wait we had inventory cards? WHat WHATTTT.
That sounds kind of awesome.

Character models did. They could take wargear cards as upgrades. The number they could take varied on what kind of character they were (more expensive, higher ranking characters could take more usually). And they included things like combi-weapons, storm shields, refractor fields, etc. There were some that were pretty broken, like virus grenades. The local metas and stores I knew just banned its use but others have horror stories I guess because their friends and fellow players were apparently all TFG, lol.

Wargear cards were just ways to customize the characters with rare or uncommon wargear, much of which is just listed in the Armory section of the codex books now. 2nd Edition was a much "smaller" game than the current game so

The unit lists in the 1st Edition (RT) era game were a bit wackier, but that's because the game was a little wackier. So there were Choke and Stasis and even Hallucinogen grenades/missiles available.

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:

McGibs wrote:For infantry, coming to grips with a tank in close combat is entirely to your advantage. The tank crew are the ones to be scared.
In WW2, tanks were entirely vulnerable in close-quarters fighting like cities, and NEEDED infantry support to protect them from other infantry. Tanks moving at combat speed in dense terrain can't move very fast, the crew can't see or hear very well (massive blind spots), and their main weapons are normally pretty useless at point blank range against sneaky ambushers.

Except in that silly Brad Pitt Tank Movie that came out recently, lol.

i expected more from that movie. that last sequence was just plain bad. and the pacing was all wrong. pretty disappointing all in all. saving private ryan it was not.

Bring back vortex grenades! Bye bye riptide

I'm liking the shaped charge grenade (even if it is a bit crude) but these grenades aren't doing too much damage to the Humvee in the vid - smashed bulletproof windscreens, burst run-flat tyres and a lifted hood (crew stunned maybe?)

the vehicles of 40k are for an all-out war scenario and don't have the vulnerabilities we see in our current lightly armored patrol vehicles. the British challenger 2 mbt can take repeated strikes from some of the most advanced HEAT rounds/missiles and sabot rounds available today!

i noticed that the video didn't pay much attention to the condition of the people who threw these devices after detonation. they were very close to an explosion after all!

so i think that the one grenade per shooting phase is quite fair - one grenade thrower and everyone else behind/under something. the alternative profile for close combat is good, because wedging a grenade in a gap/vent is fairly easy but i don't think it should be as easy to hit as it is.

if a vehicle has moved (i.e.driven forwards) i would not be comfortable in my ability to place a charge on it with any degree of certainty over its effectiveness.

maybe there could be a piece of wargear which gives a squad magnetised grenades allowing them to hit a moving vehicle more easily?

Just because not much happened on the outside doesn't mean much. An explosion contained in the vehicle could easily kill all the crew and not make much outward disturbance.

 McGibs wrote:

Yes, everything in the game is an abstraction. The point I'm trying to make is that troops always assaulting rear armor and hitting on a 3+/auto-hitting is an abstraction that I don't like when it comes to krak grenades. It turns what should be a desperate situation into an attractive option.

My point is that its not a desperate situation. Attacking tanks with close ranged anti-tank weapons is a legitimate and viable way of knocking out armoured vehicles. *snip*

You can volunteer to be that guy, I'll cover you. Gimme your dog tags, in case we can't find your teeth to ID your remains

No soldier in either the Canadian or US Armed Forces has the specialty of "tank assaulter." Basic infantrymen are never taught the weak spots on a tank, and then told to get as close as possible to destroy it. There is no modern device in service of the US or Canada that requires hand emplacement of an anti-tank weapon. You know why? It's extremely dumb. Insurgents do it because their choices are limited. In Saving Private Ryan, they use an expedient method from a field manual because they had no other choice. Did any of those guys look like they were thrilled with that? Did any of them survive after the tank was crippled? It's a desperate situation and not within the realm of normal operations.

We're a bit OT here, but just because you can assault a tank, does not mean it's a rational thing to do. Let alone something that is successful the majority of the time: 10 guys assault a tank with krak, 6.67 hit, 3.33 glances against AV10.

Comparing 21st century modern military doctrine to 40k is a pretty far fetch, a weird amalgamation of medieval and early 20th century, and straight up action-movie.
Until more recent innovations of infantry anti-tank weapons, there were PLENTY of devices that required close range use, many of which were highly effective. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-tank_grenade
There are no mass produced laser guided javelin rockets in 40k, at least not available to infantry, and anything that comes close is either so rare, revered, or misunderstood, its really not in the same ballpark.

Also, lets look at our equivalents in 40k, guardsmen. Who, by default, cannot do anything at all to AV10. That's the comparison baseline here. Human rifleman. Cannot damage tank.
You need to equip them specifically with anti-tank equipment, and surprise surprise, they can crack armour. Buying guardsmen krak grenades is effectively buying them the training and equipment to assault and destroy vehicles.
And then it's only upwards from there. Space marines are giant action-hero freaks that are equipped with the best weapons to deal with every situation.

And if youre looking at 40k tactics and military doctrine from a "rational thing to do" standpoint, then... I just don't know what to tell you. In a universe where one of the most effective ways of opening up a tank is literally punching it with a giant energized novelty hand, using anti tank grenades seemspretty high on the scale of plausability.
you can argue the rules implimentation, but you cant really argue that at grenades werent a legitimate weapon in history, which is why theyre a legitamate weapon in 40k.

How do you know the Missile Launcher isn't a Javelin equivalent?

Ok, there is one javelin equivalent, and it's the tau seeker missile.

Imperial launchers are cold war era dumb-rockets at best.

 McGibs wrote:
Comparing 21st century modern military doctrine to 40k is a pretty far fetch, a weird amalgamation of medieval and early 20th century, and straight up action-movie.
Until more recent innovations of infantry anti-tank weapons, there were PLENTY of devices that required close range use, many of which were highly effective. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-tank_grenade
There are no mass produced laser guided javelin rockets in 40k, at least not available to infantry, and anything that comes close is either so rare, revered, or misunderstood, its really not in the same ballpark.

Lascannons. Autocannons. Multi-meltas. Missile Launchers. Vanquisher Cannons. Are you seriously arguing there are no 40K equivalents to modern RANGED anti-tank weapons available to the lowly guardsman?

Also, lets look at our equivalents in 40k, guardsmen. Who, by default, cannot do anything at all to AV10. That's the comparison baseline here. Human rifleman. Cannot damage tank.
You need to equip them specifically with anti-tank equipment, and surprise surprise, they can crack armour. Buying guardsmen krak grenades is effectively buying them the training and equipment to assault and destroy vehicles.
And then it's only upwards from there. Space marines are giant action-hero freaks that are equipped with the best weapons to deal with every situation.

We agree here. Equipping guardsmen with krak grenades allows them to assault a tank and kill it. Again, you're talking about how it's possible to kill a tank close up, while I'm giving you good reasons why you don't want to. For every close-in AT weapon you dig out of wikipedia, I can probably find 10 ranged weapons from the same time period.

you can argue the rules implimentation, but you cant really argue that at grenades werent a legitimate weapon in history, which is why theyre a legitamate weapon in 40k.

I am arguing rules implementation. Where am I arguing that grenades aren't a legitimate weapon? I'm stating that it shouldn't be so easy to kill a tank in assault. I keep saying it's a tool of last resort that should not be a practical guarantee of success. It's like we're having a parallel discussion where you don't acknowledge that fact, but instead keep telling me how it's possible. If I want a glass of water, I can draw water from the river using buckets and carry them a mile uphill to my house, OR I can place a glass under my faucet and turn the knob.

I can not add anything further to this line of discussion.

 McGibs wrote:
Ok, there is one javelin equivalent, and it's the tau seeker missile.

Imperial launchers are cold war era dumb-rockets at best.

Pretty sure they also have a targeting system. The reason why it isn't that well represented in game is due to balance.
Can you imagine missiles auto-hitting everything they are aimed at?

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 McGibs wrote:
Ok, there is one javelin equivalent, and it's the tau seeker missile.

Imperial launchers are cold war era dumb-rockets at best.

Pretty sure they also have a targeting system. The reason why it isn't that well represented in game is due to balance.
Can you imagine missiles auto-hitting everything they are aimed at?

Since when do Javelin's automatically hit their target every time?

Remember that a miss in the game doesn't always mean you took the shot and didn't hit. It can also mean you never took the shot because you didn't have a clear view, or maybe your targeting system never got a lock.

As a discussion on grenades, I was focusing on those in particular. Obviously there are more effective ranged weapons, and just as in reality, they account for far more tank kills than assaults ever do.
What I was understanding from your arguments, was that tank-assaults should be mechanically more difficult because the men are afraid, they lack training, and their equipment is not up to the task.

Infantry do not like assaulting tanks. In fact, it's rather terrifying and a method of absolute last resort.

Given some hand tools, a few gallons of gasoline, and an unmoving/uncrewed MBT, I might be able to disable it. The ease of disabling it isn't the issue. It's the psychological effect a 70-ton machine that can kill you simply by moving at an inopportune time--never mind all the guns it has--that makes it particulalrly undesirable to approach as an infantryman.

It turns what should be a desperate situation into an attractive option.

No soldier in either the Canadian or US Armed Forces has the specialty of "tank assaulter." Basic infantrymen are never taught the weak spots on a tank, and then told to get as close as possible to destroy it. There is no modern device in service of the US or Canada that requires hand emplacement of an anti-tank weapon. You know why? It's extremely dumb. Insurgents do it because their choices are limited. In Saving Private Ryan, they use an expedient method from a field manual because they had no other choice. Did any of those guys look like they were thrilled with that? Did any of them survive after the tank was crippled? It's a desperate situation and not within the realm of normal operations.

This is where I'm hearing you argue that AT grenades arent a legitimate weapon, and that the troops that are employing them are undertrained and terrified of doing their job.

I agree that the mechanics of assaulting tanks (easy to hit, no overwatch or tankshock danger) could use some reworking, but not for the reasons youve argued. After the vanquisher cannons, and lascannons, and meltaguns, youve got krak grenades. Theyre a last ditch effort because theyre short ranged and difficult to employ. Theyre not a last ditch effort because the soldiers are incompetent and the equipment is ineffective.

Semantics at this point, I agree to move on to other areas of discussion.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Just because not much happened on the outside doesn't mean much. An explosion contained in the vehicle could easily kill all the crew and not make much outward disturbance.

sure, but they weren't contained inside the vehicle, they went off on the outside surface. the windshields are designed to take an RPG-7 so these crude grenades are more about the psychological effects of being ambushed when you don't expect it and then spend the rest of your time in the country wondering when its going to happen again and if the next one will kill or mutilate you.
the suicide rate of returning Iraq/Afghanistan veterans is quite significant and is largely being ignored by the politicians.

our weapon effectiveness has never been better in terms of penetrative capability, reliability and accuracy.

also: remember British ww1 tanks had Armour which was typically 14mm thick on the front!
the thickest Armour available during ww1 was on the German A7V at 30mm on the front, dropping to 20mm on the side and 10mm on the rear.

in ww2 this goes up to 78mm on the front of the British 'matilda 2'

"a shped charge warhead might be capable of penetrating 39 inches of (1000mm) of standard armor, it will be generally defeated by the 24 inches (600mm) of chobham-type armor on an Abrams" - Dunnigan, "how to make war" page 99 and Osprey "tools of violence" page 120

"well, when the IED exploded about three feet off the front right tire of our vehicle, it was, obviously, pretty traumatic. you basically go blank for 3 to 5 seconds or so. there is smoke is everywhere. even the vents inside the Humvee blew out and once everything sort of cleared up, i could see that the windshield was just shattered. its about, i don't know, three or four inches thick and that really stopped a lot or all of the shrapnel to come through that I'm sure would have hit myself in the face, as well as the driver."
"so without that, you think you probably would have died?"
"oh, you know, it's hard to say if i would have died or not but i can tell you shrapnel was coming right at the windshield. a big chunk of metal or something went through the right front tire. it nearly sheared the chassis in half and the whole hood was blown off." - Captain Mark Chung US military for CNN interviewed by Paula Zahn.

i worked with a guy (i was going to put his name down and then thought better of it) who came from Poland and he was the driver of an HMMWV (Humvee) during his military service and was hit in the windscreen by a TOW anti-tank missile - he had a lot of reconstructive sugery, his vehicle commander died (he still has hang ups about it) and the vehicle was an m-kill but the thing i take from it is that a dedicated shaped-charge anti-TANK round killed one of the crew and wounded the rest thanks to the strength of the windscreen. that missile is supposedly capable of penetrating 700mm-800mm RHA (rolled homogenous armor)...

in short - nothing cannot be blown up since you just need to pile up enough explosives to cause on overpressure which exceeds the design limitations of its structure; however currently the types of armor we have just cant be affected by the types of devices we are chucking about on this tread. the grenade strikes on the Humvee in the video were basically symbolic, in hope of damage rather than in the knowlege of it.

To be fair these devices are fighting vehicles 30 years superior, and in non ideal use (chucking them horizontally against fast moving humvees rather than getting correct angle detonations againt tank top armour). Rdg3s weilded by trained russian troops are more than capable of getting a mobility kill on a patton or something, but yes theyre rather outclassed by modern afvs.

Thats not to say that 40k tanks are comparable to abrams, what with their slab sided ww1 design. Given the matchup most modern american gear would mop the floor with 40k vehicles in a one on one engagement.

i dunno, i think they might last for a bit..

every time i see the 'armoured ceramite' option i think of chobham though.

getting back on topic - i think it should be easy to hit a stationary vehicle but quite difficult to hit one which has moved.

I'd even consider infantry not being able to assault a turbo-boosting vehicle, but a mate has 3 wave serpents and counting.

I'm also thinking that a melta bomb should be a guaranteed hit on a stationary vehicle but unable to hit a moving one. although, i do find the idea of a marine sergeant running alongside a tank fiddling with a melta bomb with his squad running alongside funny. i like to think that they're ultramarines..

I can't think of a game where I havn't used them. Granted I dont use frag (space marine player me) a lot b1ut Krak all the time. CC with vehicles is great way to strip hull points.

Throwing them isn't all good with only one guy able to do it can be a pain, but it is a strenth 6 hit, and thats the bonus with combat squads I guess. If you split, you two guys out of ten who throw a krak or frag.

As for my tau playing mate his haywire grenades are just as evil.