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.

 Hollow wrote:
I don't think there really is a problem. Some posters are trying to make out like there is a problem, but there isn't.

2 minutes of research into what a bolter is supposed to be reveals that it would be entirely possible for it to damage a tank. The same with imaginary laser guns.

It's just argumentative, neck-bearded, pedantic, nonsense that doesn't really add anything to the debate of what the rules actually are.

You know it's possible to disagree with others' opinions without being rude about it, right?

The fact that you don't see a problem with it is fine. Others disagree. That's also fine. Clearly, you and they have different opinions on what effect is believable for an imaginary laser gun to have on an imaginary tank armoured with imaginary material.

If people pointing out that their opinion differs from yours is such a problem, it's possible that discussion forums really aren't for you.

 kronk wrote:
I believe they already said they cannot join units. Not sure how I like that. Maybe only characters can target characters?

During the live QA, they corrected themselves from saying "joining a unit" to "being near a unit", or there abouts.

 kronk wrote:
I believe they already said they cannot join units. Not sure how I like that. Maybe only characters can target characters?

I'm hoping it'll be a protection in the line of "can't be targeted if there is any friendly unit within X of it.

That would be way too powerful. The "fake rumour" of not being able to target unless closest model or within 12" would be good. This is assuming that the heroes are like in AoS, that their main function is to buff nearby units and if these buffs are any good, there needs to be some way to kill those characters, other than killing everything near them first, as anyone worth their dice, won't let the opponent to get to close combat with them if they are necessary for the overall strategy.

I can't believe people are complaining about a lasgun "dealing the game-changing wound" when in 7th Edition vehicles can literally die *from full health* in one-hit to any random AP2 weapon. It is impossible for a lasgun to kill a vehicle at full health in one shot, and as has been worked out, it takes hundreds of lasgun/bolter shots to really damage those models.

One of the big problems with 40K 7th Edition is that vehicles are too fragile and die too easily to spammed mid-Strength guns with high rates of fire, i.e. Scatter Lasers. There's no point in bringing dedicated anti-tank weapons most of the time because they simply lack the efficiency to be useful. Now? Scatter Lasers took a huge hit against vehicles while Lascannons and the like are now the best sources of dealing with tanks...as it should be.

Sure, it might be "unrealistic" (well, sorta not really if it takes hundreds of shots) for something like a lasgun to wound a vehicle, and the change seems arbitrary given that small arms fire still won't do too much to vehicles. However, what this does is give every model some form of chance to do something in a game; in many 7th Edition games, certain units are entirely useless outside of potentially grabbing an objective. It's really fun when you come up against a triple Land Raider army with your fluffy infantry-centric Tau army. Yeah, so much fun. Or hey, what about when Magnus starts flying around and it is nigh on impossible to kill him because the vast majority of armies in the game completely lack the means to efficiently deal with that?

For balance AND interactive purposes, the new system is far better. Sure, my Dreadnought can be harmed by Bolters now....but then, so can that Wraithknight that previously rendered 75% of my army obsolete. Besides, if you can't get to grips with Boltguns - you know, rapid-firing rockets essentially - harming a Dreadnought but have no problem with them hurting a literal living fortress in the form of a Tyrannofex, I'm glad you're not the one designing the rules.

I'm hoping that we get a system which simultaneously allows us to take cheap and fun heroes - Captains, Big Meks, Aspiring Champions - to accompany our units, but also prevents them being unkillable force multipliers. AoS manages it by just letting you shoot them freely, but that won't work for 40k and its Railguns; I suspect that we'll see something like the Look Out Sir mechanic used to help beef them up against ranged shooting.

 insaniak wrote:

 Hollow wrote:
I don't think there really is a problem. Some posters are trying to make out like there is a problem, but there isn't.

2 minutes of research into what a bolter is supposed to be reveals that it would be entirely possible for it to damage a tank. The same with imaginary laser guns.

It's just argumentative, neck-bearded, pedantic, nonsense that doesn't really add anything to the debate of what the rules actually are.

You know it's possible to disagree with others' opinions without being rude about it, right?

The fact that you don't see a problem with it is fine. Others disagree. That's also fine. Clearly, you and they have different opinions on what effect is believable for an imaginary laser gun to have on an imaginary tank armoured with imaginary material.

If people pointing out that their opinion differs from yours is such a problem, it's possible that discussion forums really aren't for you.

You realize he's not actually insulting anyone specific right? He's talking about the argument itself, not the people. "It's just argumentative, neck-bearded, pedantic, nonsense". And I for one, agree with him. Welcome to the far future. Where the weaponry surpasses the armor.

I think people that agree with him are poo poo heads. Not you specifically, though!

I am also not scared about bolters killing my land raiders.

" Besides, if you can't get to grips with Boltguns - you know, rapid-firing rockets essentially - harming a Dreadnought but have no problem with them hurting a literal living fortress in the form of a Tyrannofex, I'm glad you're not the one designing the rules."

Those are people who are writing those comments though...

 jamopower wrote:
That would be way too powerful. The "fake rumour" of not being able to target unless closest model or within 12" would be good.

Say hello to buggies, land speeders etc sniping all minor characters quickly.

Merely as an example - if I say that your point of view is stupid, it's all fine with you? You're completely fine with that?

SeanDrake wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

 lessthanjeff wrote:

 En Excelsis wrote:


I have provided the example of the WL, and then gone on to explain at length why this is, at best a double edged sword, or at worst, even more harmful to the overall balance.

And the only thing I've heard so far in return is 'but it'll be more balanced' with no evidence to support it.

I don't want to sound mean but...

How can evidence be provided when we know nothing about the wraithlord at this point? It could have more wounds, move farther, or cost less now. Even its weapon options may have different rend or damage values associated with them to differentiate. Run a maulerfiend for a few games and come back and say that walkers shouldn't get the same treatment wraithlords have had.

This is a great point in this argument. Using the single Dread as an example ignores the fact that a Wraithknight mauls specific close combat walkers in close combat, despite having access to shooting (like the dread), and it doesn't really need to give up its CC effectiveness to take guns (unlike a dread). But I mean what is the good balance and fluff argument that a Wraithlord (for equal or less points) should trash things like maulerfiends, Deff Dreads etc. While also being more durable against most shooting, being able to shoot etc. These models that have similar roles should be relatively equal if they are costed relatively equally. It shouldn't be that one is clearly superior to the other. Lets take the wraithlord out of the picture, what about the riptide? It is superior/equal to a dread in CC right now and far better at shooting. There is literally no good argument for being upset that some of your units are slightly worse respective to other units. If you in any way hope (like I do) that all units will be good at their combat role for their points cost.

Annnnnddddd a swing and a miss from the peanut gallery, starts ranting about wraithknights and then switches to wrathlords to make his argument fit the facts being discussed. I got to ask show me on the dolly we're the bad elder touched you, also are you a marine player? Do you think Tau should be totally removed from the game? Just checking because I have noticed a correlation.

Ahhh I really give up we know have people arguing that gak game design should be excused because it's hard and that despite the evidence of litterally every other war game made that complex rules/realisim cannot be done in a balanced game. sorry that issue is a GW issue.

I am out I give up ... I know Lord K will have some free time now.

I Sean Drake do fully recant all negative opinions of GW and the parts of 8th shown and humble thank the chosen in this thread for leading my away from my heretical beliefs to promised nirvana of perfection that is 8th.
Further I no longer feel that AoS is the most shallow wargame ever gak out in one weekend on a sheet of a4 with little to no redeeming qualities other than being able to play it while blind drunk, lobotomised or both. Also the fluff in no way is ripped off Planescape,MTG and Numeneria and is both highly original and did not make a good cure for insomnia(except that one that was a knock off of the early wfb it was ok).

Bye

Ummmm.....swing and a miss by the critic. If you followed the thread I had posted previously and instead of thinking I was being malevolent in intent maybe you could instead see that I mistyped in the first line....I meant wraithlord the whole time, sorry I didn't even realize my mistake until you pointed it out. Replace my first Wraithknight with Wraithlord. Post still holds true.....

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

Spoiler:

 nintura wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Hollow wrote:
I don't think there really is a problem. Some posters are trying to make out like there is a problem, but there isn't.

2 minutes of research into what a bolter is supposed to be reveals that it would be entirely possible for it to damage a tank. The same with imaginary laser guns.

It's just argumentative, neck-bearded, pedantic, nonsense that doesn't really add anything to the debate of what the rules actually are.

You know it's possible to disagree with others' opinions without being rude about it, right?

The fact that you don't see a problem with it is fine. Others disagree. That's also fine. Clearly, you and they have different opinions on what effect is believable for an imaginary laser gun to have on an imaginary tank armoured with imaginary material.

If people pointing out that their opinion differs from yours is such a problem, it's possible that discussion forums really aren't for you.

You realize he's not actually insulting anyone specific right? He's talking about the argument itself, not the people. "It's just argumentative, neck-bearded, pedantic, nonsense". And I for one, agree with him. Welcome to the far future. Where the weaponry surpasses the armor.

Merely as an example - if I say that your point of view is stupid, it's all fine with you? You're completely fine with that?

Yes, 100%. Saying my view is stupid is not the same as saying I'm stupid. I have plenty of evidence that I can show to the contrary for the latter remark. Anyone can have a stupid view, because they either don't fully understand the situation, or they are arguing for the sake of arguing, or any number of things.

tneva82 wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
The only way a grot can destroy a tank is if they are really, really lucky.
Sort of how there's a minuscule chance that a revolver bullet might hit something important in a tank.
Especially if that tank has already been ravaged by anti-tank weapons and might now have big, gaping weak points.

Problem isn't unlikely scenario of grots destroying undamaged russ by themselves. Problem is having ability to even hurt in a first place it shouldn't have.

Grots shoot, knock of wound. Your "might have big gaping weak points" doesn't even apply here. Or do the gaps appear out of future somehow conveniently?

Lascannon hits, finishes of. Without grot wound that wouldn't have happened.

That is something that should not happen if game doesnt' want to break all sense of disbelief.

Ah well. Won't happen in our games and even if I go to tournament I won't be even rolling those attacks regardless of situation.

Or, the lascannon hits the tank, makes a big hole (reduces it to low wounds), and then small arms finishes it.
You would not want to use small arms against an undamaged vehicle, as there would be no reward. Potentially finishing it off after the heavy weapons have been used is a reward.

Caederes wrote:
I can't believe people are complaining about a lasgun "dealing the game-changing wound" when in 7th Edition vehicles can literally die *from full health* in one-hit to any random AP2 weapon. It is impossible for a lasgun to kill a vehicle at full health in one shot, and as has been worked out, it takes hundreds of lasgun/bolter shots to really damage those models.

One hit taking tank out is exactly how tanks actually are taken out and how big things should be possible to take out...

You don't take out Abrams by knocking it repeatedly and when certain level is reached boom.

Much better when even something like baneblade has to seriously consider that the lascannon pointed by tactical can actually blow it up if he's careless. That's the game I play.

 nintura wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

Spoiler:

 nintura wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Hollow wrote:
I don't think there really is a problem. Some posters are trying to make out like there is a problem, but there isn't.

2 minutes of research into what a bolter is supposed to be reveals that it would be entirely possible for it to damage a tank. The same with imaginary laser guns.

It's just argumentative, neck-bearded, pedantic, nonsense that doesn't really add anything to the debate of what the rules actually are.

You know it's possible to disagree with others' opinions without being rude about it, right?

The fact that you don't see a problem with it is fine. Others disagree. That's also fine. Clearly, you and they have different opinions on what effect is believable for an imaginary laser gun to have on an imaginary tank armoured with imaginary material.

If people pointing out that their opinion differs from yours is such a problem, it's possible that discussion forums really aren't for you.

You realize he's not actually insulting anyone specific right? He's talking about the argument itself, not the people. "It's just argumentative, neck-bearded, pedantic, nonsense". And I for one, agree with him. Welcome to the far future. Where the weaponry surpasses the armor.

Merely as an example - if I say that your point of view is stupid, it's all fine with you? You're completely fine with that?

Yes, 100%. Saying my view is stupid is not the same as saying I'm stupid. I have plenty of evidence that I can show to the contrary for the latter remark. Anyone can have a stupid view, because they either don't fully understand the situation, or they are arguing for the sake of arguing, or any number of things.

Very well. I view things from a different perspective - attributing qualities or defects to a point of view also mirrors that attribute on the speaker.

But that's just me.

tneva82 wrote:

But sure forget about any critique. If post isn't 100% praise to GW about how they can do no wrong don't post. That's your attitude eh?
And btw obviously you don't just forget since you are so vehemently defending the article.

You obviously need to learn to read and comprehend the written word a little (ok, a lot) better, as I haven't defended that article at all. I've said that it was a waste of time several times. My only "issue" is your cartoonish overreaction.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
You would not want to use small arms against an undamaged vehicle, as there would be no reward. Potentially finishing it off after the heavy weapons have been used is a reward.

Riiiight. You have tank in range and nothing else and you wont' fire? right...

(well okay maybe you don't. I won't ever. Period. Doesn't matter if I have nothing else to shoot and getting that 1 wound will win me game. I won't roll the dice)

A thought just occurred to me. Does anyone else think that with this change in the to wound chart, we might see use of things that are S/T 1/2?

It is probably still unlikely, but these numbers are a bit more viable than they were previously.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:

Caederes wrote:
I can't believe people are complaining about a lasgun "dealing the game-changing wound" when in 7th Edition vehicles can literally die *from full health* in one-hit to any random AP2 weapon. It is impossible for a lasgun to kill a vehicle at full health in one shot, and as has been worked out, it takes hundreds of lasgun/bolter shots to really damage those models.

One hit taking tank out is exactly how tanks actually are taken out and how big things should be possible to take out...

You don't take out Abrams by knocking it repeatedly and when certain level is reached boom.

Much better when even something like baneblade has to seriously consider that the lascannon pointed by tactical can actually blow it up if he's careless. That's the game I play.

That may be interesting to you, to me it leads to too many bad game experiences whether it is realistic or not. Baneblade gets killed turn 1 on the first shot, from a drop pod melta gun. There goes ~1/3rd of your army in a 1500 point game. It is just not a fun experience, and usually leads to a dull game. That method also leads to the potential (and I have seen it happen) of completely crippling your opponent turn 1 if they like tanks. Shoot a lascannon at one tank, boom, the second, boom, the third immobilized, their vindicator weapon destroyed....again leads to a not fun game experience really for either play just due to super lucky rolling.

 Hollow wrote:
2 minutes of research into what a bolter is supposed to be reveals that it would be entirely possible for it to damage a tank. The same with imaginary laser guns.

So you've gone from "BOLTERS AREN'T REAL!" to "Anyone who does some research into a bolter..." in a page and a half?

Uh huh. I guess that's why your arguments are so...

*puts on sunglasses*

... hollow.

YEAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

 Hollow wrote:
It's just argumentative, neck-bearded, pedantic, nonsense that doesn't really add anything to the debate of what the rules actually are.

To be fair, you're not really adding anything to the debate either, what with all the position switching. And good start on the "neck-beard" insults. That's really classy stuff.

Caederes wrote:
I can't believe people are complaining about a lasgun "dealing the game-changing wound" when in 7th Edition vehicles can literally die *from full health* in one-hit to any random AP2 weapon. It is impossible for a lasgun to kill a vehicle at full health in one shot, and as has been worked out, it takes hundreds of lasgun/bolter shots to really damage those models.

One of the big problems with 40K 7th Edition is that vehicles are too fragile and die too easily to spammed mid-Strength guns with high rates of fire, i.e. Scatter Lasers. There's no point in bringing dedicated anti-tank weapons most of the time because they simply lack the efficiency to be useful. Now? Scatter Lasers took a huge hit against vehicles while Lascannons and the like are now the best sources of dealing with tanks...as it should be.

Sure, it might be "unrealistic" (well, sorta not really if it takes hundreds of shots) for something like a lasgun to wound a vehicle, and the change seems arbitrary given that small arms fire still won't do too much to vehicles. However, what this does is give every model some form of chance to do something in a game; in many 7th Edition games, certain units are entirely useless outside of potentially grabbing an objective. It's really fun when you come up against a triple Land Raider army with your fluffy infantry-centric Tau army. Yeah, so much fun. Or hey, what about when Magnus starts flying around and it is nigh on impossible to kill him because the vast majority of armies in the game completely lack the means to efficiently deal with that?

For balance AND interactive purposes, the new system is far better. Sure, my Dreadnought can be harmed by Bolters now....but then, so can that Wraithknight that previously rendered 75% of my army obsolete. Besides, if you can't get to grips with Boltguns - you know, rapid-firing rockets essentially - harming a Dreadnought but have no problem with them hurting a literal living fortress in the form of a Tyrannofex, I'm glad you're not the one designing the rules.

You fell to exact same trap I pointed out in my earlier post - on the one hand, it's "great for gameplay" when every unit has chance to do something, on other hand, that chance is so miniscule it has no practical effect and thus doesn't destroy realism.

Which it is? You can't have it both ways. In 8th edition, your Pulse Rifle spam does NOTHING to those Land Raiders - just like in 7th. You may strip down couple of wounds, that is all. Unless you load up with EMP grenades...just like in 7th edition.

Lets be honest here: how many times you heard complaints of how an army couldn't hurt a Land Raider? How many times you heard complaints when an army couldn't hurt rerollable 2++ Deathstar?
In first instance, there was no theoretical chance to hurt the enemy unit, in second instance, there was. So Land Raiders were worse than 2+++ Deathstars....right??

tneva82 wrote:

One hit taking tank out is exactly how tanks actually are taken out and how big things should be possible to take out...

You don't take out Abrams by knocking it repeatedly and when certain level is reached boom.

Yeah, just like Monstrous Creatures can currently be killed in one shot because someone manages to hit the head, heart or other vital organs with a high powered weapon.
...
Oh wait, they can't, they only lose one wound and keep fighting and moving with 100% efficiency. Unlike vehicles you can't even immobilize them by blowing off legs or destroy their weapons by cutting off their weapon wielding arms.
Yay, realism.
Awesome when one unit type has to suffer from arbitrary extra-realism while the rest does not.

Also find it hilarious that people are up in arms about bolters being able to damage tanks from the front because of realism.
As if the same gun that was able to PENETRATE AV10 back armour would somehow not be able to cause serious damage to vital systems on the front of a tank from shredding vision ports to the point of the gunnery crew being blind, damaging side-sponson hydraulics to the point of them no longer being able to turn or to dowright blowing off track links and slowing the whole thing down. Not to mention what would happen to the crew or other vital systems inside if some bolts went through holes punched through the armour by heavier weapons.

But surely you are a former member of the armed forces and a tank crew who can confirm that vehicles being shot up until they become literally inoperable (cough, cough, by getting repeatedly hit by explose mini-rockets that are powerful enough to penetrate rear armour) doesn't happen from actual training or experience? Or is that a conclusion you reached in your arm-chair without actual sources to back it up?

I get why they've allowed everything to hurt everything. I don't particularly like it, but I'm willing to accept it. I just find it weird that a space marine has the same chance of hurting a tank as a grot. Or a snotling.
And it gets weirder when you look at things with greater than toughness 10. Against t14 a grot is as good as a plasma gun.

tneva82 wrote:

Caederes wrote:
I can't believe people are complaining about a lasgun "dealing the game-changing wound" when in 7th Edition vehicles can literally die *from full health* in one-hit to any random AP2 weapon. It is impossible for a lasgun to kill a vehicle at full health in one shot, and as has been worked out, it takes hundreds of lasgun/bolter shots to really damage those models.

One hit taking tank out is exactly how tanks actually are taken out and how big things should be possible to take out...

You don't take out Abrams by knocking it repeatedly and when certain level is reached boom.

Much better when even something like baneblade has to seriously consider that the lascannon pointed by tactical can actually blow it up if he's careless. That's the game I play.

So you like the ability to one-shot tanks, correct? You don't like that lasguns can harm a tank, even though they can't one-shot the tank, also correct? Sorry it's just your posts aren't very clear on that front. Judging from your other posts though, you don't like that a grot blasta/lasgun can harm a tank, then a lascannon can finish it off?

Here's the problem with your logic though. What actually killed vehicles in 7th Edition? Hull point removal, not kill shots. Removing kill shots from the game means it is less luck-oriented and - per your words - game-changing based on a single shot, and altering the way vehicles are harmed makes weapons that were previously spammed suddenly far less valuable. Yes, a Boltgun can contribute to killing a tank, but it's overall contribution is minuscule, and this will largely be the same of the weapons that populated the competitive meta - weapons that were too good at killing everything and so rendered dedicated anti-tank weapons useless. You're going to see more lascannons now even with the removal of that kill-shot chance.

And again, I'll point you to the Tyrannofex. Tyranids under the effects of Synapse are said to fight on even when near death. When you destroy a vehicle in one shot, it represents you getting a lucky shot on the engine or something to that effect. With a Tyrannofex, you're instead getting something like a piercing head-shot through that obliterates its brain. Alternatively, you can wear both the tank or the Tyrannofex down. While I'm no expert, from what I gather and contrary to what you're saying, it is possible to disable tanks - i.e. damaging treads, hitting exposed integral mechanisms, hitting an ammo feed or primed shell, etc - with small arms fire, but the chances are incredibly slim and so gradually wearing it down is an overly long and painful process. In the case of a Tyranid monster that will refuse to stop fighting until it is truly dead, one described as a living fortress like a Tyrannofex, can't you use a similar line of reasoning as to how you could slowly but surely whittle it down? It's the same with Wraithbone constructs that are essentially vehicles just like Dreadnoughts, yet in the game they have completely different rules and vulnerabilities compared to tanks. The Wraithbone constructs have pilots (in the case Wraithknights) and are fully enclosed armoured shells, just like the tanks, no? It's part of why it's never made any sense for Walkers and Monstrous Creatures in particular to have different rules, especially as there's seemingly no rhyme or reason as to why one is a Walker and one is a Monstrous Creature. Also, from a game balance perspective, it simplifies and more easily allows for differentiation between the units without breaking the logic of the game through wonky unit-specific rules (currently, Walkers are garbage compared to Monstrous Creatures).

My issue with everything can hurt everything is the "Might as well!" of it all.

In the rules we made ages ago we created a system for damaging and destroying buildings. Only certain weapons were good at it, but some weapons could do it on a lucky hit (memories of a Broadside bringing down a 4 story building full of Lootaz!).

The problem was it created a "Might as well!" situation for units that couldn't do anything that turn, so I ended up with a Techmarine taking pot shots at an empty building with a Plasma Pistol simply because he could, so he'd have something to do. It didn't make any sense that someone would just be wasting shots like that at a building, and I fear the same thing happening with this version of 40K

Except now it's "Well I've got these Guardians left, might as well shoot your Land Raider! They're not doing anything else!", except you don't see groups of infantry just unload onto an enemy vehicle with smallarms because they've got nothing better to do.

It doesn't sit well with me, and it's another way of reducing the role of positioning in the game.

"Put your Guardians in a bad position where they can't shred infantry? Fear not, fellow Aeldari™ player, just shoot at that Land Raider. You may get lucky, so why the feth not, right?"

No. That's stupid!

They are willing to change it supposedly after they release the edition. playrtest it then be vocal about how to change it. Dont just prove it sucks. offer an alternative.

Zustiur wrote:
I get why they've allowed everything to hurt everything. I don't particularly like it, but I'm willing to accept it. I just find it weird that a space marine has the same chance of hurting a tank as a grot. Or a snotling.
And it gets weirder when you look at things with greater than toughness 10. Against t14 a grot is as good as a plasma gun.

You're not 100% correct.
A Strength 3 gun is only as good as a Strength 4 gun against vehicles of Toughness 5 or lower and Toughness 8 or higher, Toughness 6 to Toughness 7 gives the advantage to a Boltgun.
Additionally, you're not accounting for the Rend and Damage characteristics of the Plasma Gun which do make an impact on how good they are against tanks.

tneva82 wrote:
One hit taking tank out is exactly how tanks actually are taken out and how big things should be possible to take out...

You don't take out Abrams by knocking it repeatedly and when certain level is reached boom.

Much better when even something like baneblade has to seriously consider that the lascannon pointed by tactical can actually blow it up if he's careless. That's the game I play.

Probably the worst possible example - Baneblades are almost never taken out in one shot, and have almost never been possible to take out in one shot barring extremely lucky successive rolls of 6.

You're also arguing realism for tanks, but nothing else. Do you think it would be a fun mechanic if characters couldn't use look out sir, on the grounds that it makes no sense to jump in front of a laser? How about if monstrous creatures could die to a lucky headshot? Maybe it'd be fun if flyers couldn't be shot by ground troops at all? You can't just say "oh, well they die to one shot in real life" and not apply the same logic to everything else. Of course, if you DID apply the same logic to everything, the game would be very dull as it degenerated into 5th edition but worse, aka expensive models are completely pointless because my 5 point guardsman does the same job. Every single game I can think to mention has a damage mechanic precisely because you need one to have any semblance of balance; you simply cannot make a Land Raider worth 200+ points if it dies like a 35 point Rhino to meltaguns - it's actually impossible. If you want to play a game like that, I don't even know where to point you - maybe flames of war, but I think even in that there's a damage mechanic. It's not, and has never been, like that in 40k. Not even when it was Rogue Trader, and absolutely not in 2nd ed.

The purpose of the rule stands to hopefully render weapons to certain niches.