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.

7th ed: my tank shocking Rhino monster trucks an anchored Stormsurge to death. Sure, 7th totally has the realism high ground.

 MagicJuggler wrote:

 Luciferian wrote:
Also, if we're being pedantic about literalism and realism, how was Tank Shock any better when one guy out of the unit has a chance to heroically face down the tank and stop it dead in its tracks with an epically timed melee attack?

I think you just answered your own question there. Death or Glory was both an actual gameplay decision ("do I risk losing a hidden special") and narrative-forging: One lowly trooper rising to the occasion and risking life and limb to save his comrades against an armored behemoth moving with the force of a Mack truck, versus said behemoth coming to a halt Looney-Toons style against a Guardsman because it failed to hit said Guardsman despite visibly hitting said Guardsman.

But that one lonely trooper couldn't attempt such a thing against a charging MC :/

I agree that there is a lot of silly stuff going on, but the arbitrary distinction between several tons of angry metal bearing down on you and several tons of angry muscle bearing down on you was also silly. The current rules need some fixing, but I do think that trying to unify MC and vehicle rules is a generally good thing. Not terribly well executed in this case, sure, but generally a good thing.

Thread has far too many "realism" vs gameplay comparisons. You just can't use one to inform the other. Gameplay has restrictions and a limited set of rules to make it function without bogging things down. Even 1st and 2nd editions, with their far more fiddly sets of rules and expansions, could not cover every conceivable situation. The rules will not and cannot be perfect representations of war in the year 40,000+.

Speaking only in terms of gameplay, I maintain that if you find your vehicle in a position where a small handful of grots have completely immobilized it (or a comparable situation), you either played poorly or were outmaneuvered.

Martel732 wrote:
7th ed: my tank shocking Rhino monster trucks an anchored Stormsurge to death. Sure, 7th totally has the realism high ground.

5th had the same issue vs Mycetic Spores. I'm not saying Tank Shock was perfect by a long shot, but removing model displacement altogether and making firing after disengaging a bespoke rule has messy implications mentioned in the OP. Sure, you could charge a Deff Dread in to kill the chaff tying up your tank, but then you expose your bigger units to counter-attack in a system where the charger gets the first strike.

Personally I like the idea of merging Tank Shock, Ramming and Hammer of Wrath into the same core rule, and adding a "displacement" (akin to how Bulldoze in WMH works) equal to the difference in Strength values between the Hammer of Wrath versus the nail. I've mentioned the Stormsurge issue beforehand in Proposed Rules, suggesting that it should be harder for a Rhino to displace an Ogryn than it should a Guardsman, or how it's silly that a Warbuggy can delay a Land Raider moving for a turn (something I used to do mercilessly in 5th btw; any turn I could force a Land Raider to move at Combat Speed was a win in my book as it meant Klaws could actually hit!).

I have never used Land Raiders in a serious game for many reasons. The number one reason: single melta shots, has now been removed. I'll worry about movement shenanigans in exchange for not getting one-shotted.

I understand the concerns, but also realize that MANY people misplayed tank shock badly. I don't miss it, really.

 PlaguedOne wrote:
Thread has far too many "realism" vs gameplay comparisons. You just can't use one to inform the other. Gameplay has restrictions and a limited set of rules to make it function without bogging things down. Even 1st and 2nd editions, with their far more fiddly sets of rules and expansions, could not cover every conceivable situation. The rules will not and cannot be perfect representations of war in the year 40,000+.

Speaking only in terms of gameplay, I maintain that if you find your vehicle in a position where a small handful of grots have completely immobilized it (or a comparable situation), you either played poorly or were outmaneuvered.

I think it's mainly problem gameplay wise. The tanks are very expensive, especially the transports and very especially land raiders, because they give a good cover for the transported troops inside, that most likely will want to get close to the enemy. Still, they are quite easy to play out for a turn by any model in the game (though of course there is overwatch and the melee attacks), especially if they get close to the enemy. This can lead to those expensive tanks being left on the shelf. Time will tell of course, I just have my doubts.

Martel732 wrote:
I have never used Land Raiders in a serious game for many reasons. The number one reason: single melta shots, has now been removed. I'll worry about movement shenanigans in exchange for not getting one-shotted.

I understand the concerns, but also realize that MANY people misplayed tank shock badly. I don't miss it, really.

Land Raiders turn into Bricks of Death thanks to the number of shots they can throw out a turn. Especially the LRC which can throw out 24 shots (not counting if you buy a Storm Bolter or Multi-Melta for it) a turn.

Plus they're large enough it's hard for a single unit to fully wrap them in a single turn (save for Berserkers or similar units that can fight twice).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jamopower wrote:

 PlaguedOne wrote:
Thread has far too many "realism" vs gameplay comparisons. You just can't use one to inform the other. Gameplay has restrictions and a limited set of rules to make it function without bogging things down. Even 1st and 2nd editions, with their far more fiddly sets of rules and expansions, could not cover every conceivable situation. The rules will not and cannot be perfect representations of war in the year 40,000+.

Speaking only in terms of gameplay, I maintain that if you find your vehicle in a position where a small handful of grots have completely immobilized it (or a comparable situation), you either played poorly or were outmaneuvered.

I think it's mainly problem gameplay wise. The tanks are very expensive, especially the transports and very especially land raiders, because they give a good cover for the transported troops inside, that most likely will want to get close to the enemy. Still, they are quite easy to play out for a turn by any model in the game (though of course there is overwatch and the melee attacks), especially if they get close to the enemy. This can lead to those expensive tanks being left on the shelf. Time will tell of course, I just have my doubts.

From my game of 8th against someone with tanks versus running an all foot Marine list: tanks art still going to be a thing. The All Mech army though is largely dead though, partially from cost, partially because it exposes your tanks to too many threats, and partially because character abilities don't work from inside the tank.

So 'World of Tanks' style armies are not as likely to be a thing, but that's fine by me.

it appears people have encounter their new "Lasgun vs Land Raider" ...

The only thing I'm getting from this thread is that people have based their understanding of tanks and armored warfare on previous editions of the 40k rules.

Can we start putting all the good things other people said in spoilers? Glad you made a friend and all bit it really clogs up the thread.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

orkychaos wrote:
The only thing I'm getting from this thread is that people have based their understanding of tanks and armored warfare on previous editions of the 40k rules.

Lots of new players/posters gotta learn the rules. Good for GW, bad for us for a while. Patience is a virtue and all that.

 Luciferian wrote:

 jamopower wrote:
I just have a bad feeling that the easily done "silencing" of tanks with disposable fast stuff will eventually make them not worth having in the army, except for the flying ones, that seem to be very useful for many things.

Or you could, you know, keep your expensive ranged weapon tanks away from blobs of enemy infantry, or support them with your own infantry.

HOW DARE YOU INTERJECT TACTICS INTO A RULES DISCUSSION!

It's just as possible to block the enemy chaff with your own/destroy them before they tie your tanks down, as it is possible to reach those tanks and tie them down.

No amount of vacuum planets-lined-up theorycrafting changes this fact, so might aswell stop trying.

I'm not saying that it's something that can't be played around. It just feels like a pretty big weakness for the vehicles which need to operate closer to the enemy lines (so transports and shorter range stuff). Also something to keep in mind when building armies, fast moving chaff and deepstrikers like lictors seem to be very valuable.

It's also good to remember that bubblewrapping is not as Easy as before due to very different pile-in and Consolidate moves. I have played enough Age of Sigmar to have been surprised by clrver use of those moves many times. Essentially you need to have more than 3" between the bubblewrap and the protected unit and even then it might not be enough if there is enough casualties.

Ok got a scenario for you... SM/BA/DA/CSM (whatever you want) assault force in a half dozen rhinos.

Charges across the field towards the opponents Gurad/Eldar/Tau positions (they aren't going to win the shooting war), ready to disembark and charge next turn.

Opponent uses 6 cheap units to surround the Rhino's and end the game as there is nothing the first player can do.

If you see nothing wrong with this you are literally trying your best to not see it.

If you can't get your transport too close to within their charge range (in most cases 12-13" but many armies much further), so therefore have to stop 14-15" away from your opponent... it leaves open the question - what's the point in (grounded) transports?

Not a complete fix by any means, but if you dump your marines at 14-15" you can move your troops and transport up (to rapid fire range for the troops, and easy charge distance for the transport), shoot up the units a bunch, and then charge whatever's left with the transport. Doesn't help units that want to get into melee, but for those that excel at short range firefights, this tactic isn't bad.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:
Tanks could move pretty fast in 7th though and lucky Explosions weren't actually that common (unless Orks/Dark Eldar); it was far more common for the vehicle to become a terrain-piece as it was stripped of Hull Points. Regarding using transports to soak overwatch, the following is also a possible scenario, especially when charging into terrain.

Cute meme, but you fail to consider moving the guys who got out of the transport closer after disembarking to better ensure they make fhe charge. Also command point rerolls are a thing too.

But you know, memes are only the straight truth and never, ever a satrical take on reality that negates facts or reasons for a swift knee jerk reaction to anything.

They did move, you're the one that failed.

Martel732 wrote:
I have never used Land Raiders in a serious game for many reasons. The number one reason: single melta shots, has now been removed. I'll worry about movement shenanigans in exchange for not getting one-shotted.

I understand the concerns, but also realize that MANY people misplayed tank shock badly. I don't miss it, really.

The 2 are unrelated.

Poly Ranger wrote:Ok got a scenario for you... SM/BA/DA/CSM (whatever you want) assault force in a half dozen rhinos.

Charges across the field towards the opponents Gurad/Eldar/Tau positions (they aren't going to win the shooting war), ready to disembark and charge next turn.

Opponent uses 6 cheap units to surround the Rhino's and end the game as there is nothing the first player can do.

If you see nothing wrong with this you are literally trying your best to not see it.

If you can't get your transport too close to within their charge range (in most cases 12-13" but many armies much further), so therefore have to stop 14-15" away from your opponent... it leaves open the question - what's the point in (grounded) transports?

So why in your scenarior the entire list is only in those Rhinos? No HS or FA options to balance things out and work on thinning hordes, or breaking enemy armour and thus acting as fire magnets?

Also fast units like Assault Marines or Thunderwolf Cav can screen tanks from the front to protect them.

Last two things before I move on:
1. Just because a tank is surrounded doesn't mean it can't anything. If you haven't gotten into melee with the tank it can still shoot, and if it's in melee it can still fight.
2. 3" disembark from the hull doesn't prevent verticle movement so if the vehicle is close enough to ruins the unit can always pile out on a floor right above it.

tl;dr: don,t put all your stuff in tanks without support unless you like loosing, screening units still work, and verticle disembarks are still a thing.

Talamare wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:
Tanks could move pretty fast in 7th though and lucky Explosions weren't actually that common (unless Orks/Dark Eldar); it was far more common for the vehicle to become a terrain-piece as it was stripped of Hull Points. Regarding using transports to soak overwatch, the following is also a possible scenario, especially when charging into terrain.

Cute meme, but you fail to consider moving the guys who got out of the transport closer after disembarking to better ensure they make fhe charge. Also command point rerolls are a thing too.

But you know, memes are only the straight truth and never, ever a satrical take on reality that negates facts or reasons for a swift knee jerk reaction to anything.

They did move, you're the one that failed.

Not really. Picture showed them disembarking, and then the tank charging, no movement, also disembarking from the rear is useless for units at want to charge. Disembark from the front, move forward (turning a 6" move effectively into a 9" one), then move the tank forward at a diagonal to charge the target's flank.

But sure, I "failed" because I picture actual tactics for doing a supported charge instead of making memes about how I don't understand concepts and instead assume that any good idea is always going to fail.

Poly Ranger wrote:
Ok got a scenario for you... SM/BA/DA/CSM (whatever you want) assault force in a half dozen rhinos.

Charges across the field towards the opponents Gurad/Eldar/Tau positions (they aren't going to win the shooting war), ready to disembark and charge next turn.

Opponent uses 6 cheap units to surround the Rhino's and end the game as there is nothing the first player can do.

If you see nothing wrong with this you are literally trying your best to not see it.

If you can't get your transport too close to within their charge range (in most cases 12-13" but many armies much further), so therefore have to stop 14-15" away from your opponent... it leaves open the question - what's the point in (grounded) transports?

"Player A has six Rhinos bursting at the seems with assault units. All his points are in these Rhinos, man, these Rhinos are his army, man."

"Player B, his opponent, has some weirdly balanced all comers list where he's got like a bubble wrap of small units of chaff in front of his bigger units."

"So Player A thinks, 'No problem, man, I'll just smash through the chaff with my tanks, man'. So he pushes all his metal boxes forward directly into the enemy deployment zone turn one, right? And, get this, man, Player B just straight up surrounds every Rhino with small units since they're so close to the Rhinos now, charges, and BAM, the Rhinos can't get out! Game over, Player B wins."

"Explain how Player A not using any advanced tactics at all like screening units, ranged weapons, unit synergy, or unit baiting lost to someone like Player B who's potentially using all of the above?"

I think this thread is actively making people dumber. If you need help with tactics, go to the tactics forum and get some advice. 8th is not 7th and going on and on and on about 7th tactics that no longer work (actually the above would never have worked in 7th anyways those Rhinos would have all exploded in seconds in 7th and the assault units would have been shot to death, anyone believing otherwise is a fool) is counterproductive.

I play World Eaters. In my first game of 8th I rushed my Rhino full of Kharn and Berzerkers forward and guess what happened? He charged that Rhino with his Rhino. Kharn couldn't get out of his flippin transport till Turn Three. Now, I take a unit of Flesh Hounds and let them lead the Rhino into battle. I've got a unit of Cultists behind them to stop deep strikers from getting behind me. I stick a Herald of Khorne on a Jugger with the Hounds, and a Deamon Prince of Khorne there too. The Hounds now do enough damage they cannot be ignored, and when the enemy tries to deal with them the whole thing explodes outwards, Berzerkers, Herald, Prince, Kharn. Hell I'm thinking of sticking another Chaos Lord in the Rhino with them. Might even take a Bloodthirster to be a bullet magnet while this bundle of DOOM moves up the field at max speed.

You can either choose to figure out new tactics within the new system, or you can choose to lose. The choice is yours.

Isn't the only real problem here that you can lock a unit in the transporter? Even that, I feel like if you know about it, you can avoid it most of the time, but it's still silly and not really a healthy game mechanic.

The fact that a vehicle can get stuck, I can't see a problem with. It's strategy, and strategy is a good thing.

I feel like a fix to the real problem would be to allow anyone sitting in a transport that is in close combat to join it.

Give anyone embarked a rule called something appropriately heroic like Join The Fray, so they can, at the start of close combat, if the vehicle is in close combat, disembark and will be placed anywhere within 1 inch of the unit your vehicle is in combat with (placed by the enemy, if you will) and they count as having been charged, giving the advantage of the charge over to the enemy. Maybe the unit even takes a mortal wound as they disembark into combat. What do I know.

I'm just saying, I hope these are the kind of things GW will be trying to fix in the coming years of 8th.

Addendum: "Join The Fray Can't be used if the vehicle made a charge move this round." Just in case someone thinks of some really fast transport that could use this way too well to drop people into combat. I'm just brainstorming here, so forgive me for not thinking about that on the first go.

 Purifier wrote:
Isn't the only real problem here that you can lock a unit in the transporter? Even that, I feel like if you know about it, you can avoid it most of the time, but it's still silly and not really a healthy game mechanic.

The fact that a vehicle can get stuck, I can't see a problem with. It's strategy, and strategy is a good thing.

I feel like a fix to the real problem would be to allow anyone sitting in a transport that is in close combat to join it.

Give anyone embarked a rule called something appropriately heroic like Join The Fray, so they can, at the start of close combat, if the vehicle is in close combat, disembark and will be placed anywhere within 1 inch of the unit your vehicle is in combat with (placed by the enemy, if you will) and they count as having been charged, giving the advantage of the charge over to the enemy. Maybe the unit even takes a mortal wound as they disembark into combat. What do I know.

I'm just saying, I hope these are the kind of things GW will be trying to fix in the coming years of 8th.

These are perfect ideas. Plus, if my transport has a door that is not blocked, I should be able to disembark even if the transport is in assault.

Call the rule "Witness This" and you're halfway to turning 8th into Fury Rhino...which truth be told would be an awesome way to 40k.

Other issues as mentioned are more mechanical in their implementation. The most irksome being vehicles failing to hit each other at point blank range. (I get they're not landing "good hits" and all but shouldn't this be what the wound roll is for?) Or as one sparky comment I came across went "What happens when two vehicles lock each other in melee? Do they spin around in place? Are Baneblades now Beyblades?" Something about that mental image just really ruined the thought of taking 8th seriously (that and the hard reset of every army, to the point of 100% illegality).

 MagicJuggler wrote:
Call the rule "Witness This" and you're halfway to turning 8th into Fury Rhino...which truth be told would be an awesome way to 40k.

Other issues as mentioned are more mechanical in their implementation. The most irksome being vehicles failing to hit each other at point blank range. (I get they're not landing "good hits" and all but shouldn't this be what the wound roll is for?) Or as one sparky comment I came across went "What happens when two vehicles lock each other in melee? Do they spin around in place? Are Baneblades now Beyblades?" Something about that mental image just really ruined the thought of taking 8th seriously (that and the hard reset of every army, to the point of 100% illegality).

I'd rather see it on the to hit role, because if they had a terrible to wound roll (meaning low str) it would mean that if a landraider hit a gretchin it might fail to wound him. Which makes just as little sense as vehicle missing another vehicle.

It just seems you are very bad at abstract concepts, and want specific rules for a lot of things. If you had a rule that vehicles could not be locked in combat, then you need exceptions for walkers, or keywords for various vehicle types, or specific rules on each vehicle stating whether it could be locked. Maybe 2 vehicles locked in a slap fight got armor plates jammed together and are stuck together and are trying to rip free (doing damage when they try).

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Not really. Picture showed them disembarking, and then the tank charging, no movement, also disembarking from the rear is useless for units at want to charge. Disembark from the front, move forward (turning a 6" move effectively into a 9" one), then move the tank forward at a diagonal to charge the target's flank.

But sure, I "failed" because I picture actual tactics for doing a supported charge instead of making memes about how I don't understand concepts and instead assume that any good idea is always going to fail.

Then you double down on it. I'm honestly impressed.

Picture showed a concept, that you failed to understand. As well as a basic understanding relations that you failed to realize.

Basic Relation - If they both moved, then they would still relatively be the same distance from the enemy. This is completely ignoring the fact that Rhinos are faster than the majority of infantry.
Concept - Finally, it doesn't matter the actual distance between the 2 because it's getting an idea across. The core of the idea the image displayed is that Transport might succeed the charge and the actual melee infantry would fail it.

So that creates a discussion of, WHY are they leaving the vehicle before arriving at the enemy.

 Talamare wrote:
So that creates a discussion of, WHY are they leaving the vehicle before arriving at the enemy.

I agree that this is the discussion. The meme isn't invalidated by anything said so far. The meme was however absolutely crazy. What are you suggesting as an alternative? That they drive their vehicle into the enemy and then disembark? Why would they do that? Are you under the impression that's how modern day APCs work? That they just run it all the way into an enemy and then disembark?

I mean clearly 40k in no way represents modern day tactics, but since you seem to be painting the picture that ramming your transport into something and then trying to disembark it while those things are ripping anyone coming out of the doors apart is the natural way to do it, you must have gotten that from somewhere, and I can't for the life of me figure out where that is.

Disembarking first so that you are then battle ready when you hit the enemy seems a lot more reasonable to me.

 Talamare wrote:

So that creates a discussion of, WHY are they leaving the vehicle before arriving at the enemy.

And the answer to that is painfully obvious: it's for gameplay and balance purposes. Because it would be too strong if vehicles could spill their units directly on top of the enemy with guaranteed charges. Same reason you can't deep strike any closer than over 9" away. Now, you can either accept that this is a game, and that as such, certain concessions must be made for the sake of gameplay, or you can argue from absurdity by selectively interpreting gameplay mechanics as what is literally happening in the battle they represent. I continue to note that no one is concerned that each army takes turns standing still while the other one fires.

 Purifier wrote:

 Talamare wrote:
So that creates a discussion of, WHY are they leaving the vehicle before arriving at the enemy.

I mean clearly 40k in no way represents modern day tactics, but since you seem to be painting the picture that ramming your transport into something and then trying to disembark it while those things are ripping anyone coming out of the doors apart is the natural way to do it, you must have gotten that from somewhere, and I can't for the life of me figure out where that is.

How about Gorkamorka, general rules for Open-Topped and Assault Vehicles in previous editions, artwork and miniatures that show half-naked Space Elves hanging on the sides of vehicles that are jumping in from low orbit, formations such as the Deliverance Broodsurge, etc? Not to mention pop culture examples (Hello Mad Max, or Serenity) where said tanks are akin to mobile pirate ships with boarding actions, etc.

This isn't about "realistic scifi armored warfare." Games like that exist already (Ex: Dirtside). This is about making tanks *feel* like tanks, or at least the semi-cinematic depiction of said tanks in a way that would "make sense". It may not be realistic to attempt to move tanks into urban terrain where they could be funneled into ambushes, their tracks torn off by IEDs, etc. but it's also not realistic nor is it cinematic for said tank to skid to a halt because it failed to hit something that would give the tank a Red Paint Job. (Side note: it would be hilarious if Deffrolla Wagons could start moving faster the more troops they run over, due to acquiring a red paint job in-game).

 MagicJuggler wrote:
And what happens if that Deffrolla missed? Say a Genestealer Cult Magus cast Hypnosis on it or so. Is the driver magically hitting the brakes each time it would hit a Cultists instead?

Impossible. Nothing short of Gork and Mork can stop an Ork from "Goin' fasta"

Yes, that would be both hilarious and a flavourful rule. But you showed a tin can transport with tiny doors for big men and tried to make out like it was ridiculous in the extreme that they had to disembark it before assaulting. It's not.

If what you were trying to say was "I want Mad Max" then you did the worst imaginable job at it. Your meme was all about bashing 8th, so are we to assume that you thought 7th was fantastic for charging in your rhino and then charging your marines out of it?

 Purifier wrote:

 Talamare wrote:
So that creates a discussion of, WHY are they leaving the vehicle before arriving at the enemy.

I agree that this is the discussion. The meme isn't invalidated by anything said so far. The meme was however absolutely crazy. What are you suggesting as an alternative? That they drive their vehicle into the enemy and then disembark? Why would they do that? Are you under the impression that's how modern day APCs work? That they just run it all the way into an enemy and then disembark?

I mean clearly 40k in no way represents modern day tactics, but since you seem to be painting the picture that ramming your transport into something and then trying to disembark it while those things are ripping anyone coming out of the doors apart is the natural way to do it, you must have gotten that from somewhere, and I can't for the life of me figure out where that is.

Disembarking first so that you are then battle ready when you hit the enemy seems a lot more reasonable to me.

I agree that Rhinos are too small and are intended for the strict purpose of ferrying troops who should disembark before arriving at the enemy.
The APC probably wouldn't then try to run the enemies over, but let's just ignore that for now.

Tho there are vehicles in the settings that were specifically designed to be able to be rushed out of. Something akin to the higgins from WW2 era.
Modern Combat doesn't really involve Swordplay, so none of our vehicles would incorporate a need to be able to exit a vehicle and rush into melee combat.
However, The Future Combat of 40k Swordplay is an integral aspect of warfare and they have designed certain vehicles to incorporate that.
Tho they also realized that not every vehicle needs that functionality.

Because mechanized infantry doesn't generally like to disembark directly under fire or into the enemy?

40k has given you a huge unrealistic view of armor and transport. Getting out of a vehicle an into combat order and ready to fight actually isn't easy and safe while being attacked.

Think about it this way. Imagine having to go through a small door, about a foot or two off ground level while enemies are right there ready to attack you right away?

Getting out of your transport before getting to the enemy SHOULD be the norm, possibly with few exceptions like land raiders. The only weird party is the transport them charging in to absorb overwatch.