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 wrote:
Problem I have with the wound increases is that it is now more efficient (in terms of units destroyed) to shoot your small arms at a Predator tank than at aTactical Squad.

It takes 120 bolter hits to kill the tactical squad, and 99 bolter hits to kill a Predator.

We have entered an age when, if I want to destroy the enemy army, it is better to shoot my small arms at tanks and my heavy weapons at infantry.

I was always under the impression that, pound for pound, marine tanks favored speed and maneuverability over raw defensive power, which was where Guard tanks tended to be better. Rhinos were primarily for getting squads to where they needed to go quickly rather than defending the squad inside like a chimera, because marines wear walking tank armor.

I'm assuming of course that you're talking about a fully loaded up 170pt predator and comparing to a 10-man tactical squad. To add another point of comparison, it takes 210 bolter hits to down a Leman Russ tank, which moves 1/2 the speed the predator does during typical combat and does less damage.

I'm fine with that.

Right, but there's favoring speed and maneuverability, and then there's "more vulnerable to small arms than the infantry".

Almost every other wargame makes even the lightest armor armored against small arms. It's typically how they differentiate between armored vehicles and softskin vehicles - resistance to small arms fire.

Not only does 40k not make that distinction (woo landspeeder) but also it is actively better now to shoot bolters at a Predator than a Tactical Squad, if your concern is just destroying the enemy. It's literally more efficient to engage a tank with an AK-47 than it is to engage infantry with an AK-47, to put this in modern terms.

Fold in the ease of infantry getting cover compared to the ease of a tank getting cover and it's even worse.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Right, but there's favoring speed and maneuverability, and then there's "more vulnerable to small arms than the infantry".

Almost every other wargame makes even the lightest armor armored against small arms. It's typically how they differentiate between armored vehicles and softskin vehicles - resistance to small arms fire.

Not only does 40k not make that distinction (woo landspeeder) but also it is actively better now to shoot bolters at a Predator than a Tactical Squad, if your concern is just destroying the enemy. It's literally more efficient to engage a tank with an AK-47 than it is to engage infantry with an AK-47, to put this in modern terms.

Fold in the ease of infantry getting cover compared to the ease of a tank getting cover and it's even worse.

Sure, if modern infantry wore super space armor it probably WOULD be more efficient to try and mess up the workings of a tank with a small arm.

But you are ignoring that every two wounds you cause against the tactical squad, 1 marine does die, taking 2 attacks and 2 bolter shots with him.

ITT:
Men wearing tank armor are less vulnerable than tanks wearing the same armor.

And yes, yes, every tactical marine that dies takes a bolter and 2 attacks with him, whatever whatever. That doesn't make it less silly in my mind, and while I recognize that's subjective, I'm just surprised no one else finds it silly at all.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
ITT:
Men wearing tank armor are less vulnerable than tanks wearing the same armor.

And yes, yes, every tactical marine that dies takes a bolter and 2 attacks with him, whatever whatever. That doesn't make it less silly in my mind, and while I recognize that's subjective, I'm just surprised no one else finds it silly at all.

Oh I find it quite silly. You should genuinely not be able to kill a tank by firing small arms at it. It feels like a video game and you're just running down the heath bar. Having the old AV vehicle rules felt so much better. You knew that certain vehicles were just immune to certain weapons, and you'd have to worm your way around to get a shot against the side or rear. And then the Land Raider and Monolith had this great distinction of having AV 14 all around, so flanking them did nothing and you have to bring high-powered weapons to bear. It was great.

Plus, having hordes of dudes firing assault rifles at vehicles breaks immersion. It's not something anybody does in a realistic situation because you know you're just wasting ammunition. When I think of my elite Space Marines who are veterans of a hundred campaigns and their spraying and praying against a tanks front armor. . . it's a little sad. Bring back Assault Squads, Fire Dragons and Tank Bustas with an ability to pile Krak/Melta bombs on a tank after assaulting it and blow it up. That's how regular infantry should be handling a tank if they don't have heavy weapons, etc.

I mean if you curate your example loading a pretty fragile tank with a ton of expensive weaponry (Something that has been a bad idea nearly ... forever) yeah, Predators are more vulnerable than Tacticals armed with just bolters.

 Galas wrote:
I mean if you curate your example loading a pretty fragile tank with a ton of expensive weaponry (Something that has been a bad idea nearly ... forever) yeah, Predators are more vulnerable than Tacticals armed with just bolters.

Only in 8th did Predators have to start worrying about weapons with a Strength less than 7 coming from the front. Prior to that it had a 13 AV to the Rhinos 11. Now both are T7 3+, and the Predator gets a single extrra wound to differentiate it. The difference in durability is basically neglegible.

I believe all kind of tanks and vehicles should probably just have double the wounds they have right now with a increase in cost of something like 30-50%. But I doubt thats gonna happen. I don't find a problem with small arms shooting and plinking some wounds to vehicles.

 Galas wrote:
I believe all kind of tanks and vehicles should probably just have double the wounds they have right now with a increase in cost of something like 30-50%. But I doubt thats gonna happen. I don't find a problem with small arms shooting and plinking some wounds to vehicles.

Ignoring Ap -1 and AP -2 would accomplish much the same. That way small arms can still technically fish for wounds but it's much less likely and even things like autocannons and plasma would still give tanks their full save. This makes those mid-range weapons worse at tank hunting and forces people to bring proper anti-tank if they want to damage armor efficiently.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Galas wrote:
I believe all kind of tanks and vehicles should probably just have double the wounds they have right now with a increase in cost of something like 30-50%. But I doubt thats gonna happen. I don't find a problem with small arms shooting and plinking some wounds to vehicles.

Ignoring Ap -1 and AP -2 would accomplish much the same. That way small arms can still technically fish for wounds but it's much less likely and even things like autocannons and plasma would still give tanks their full save. This makes those mid-range weapons worse at tank hunting and forces people to bring proper anti-tank if they want to damage armor efficiently.

Plasma is AP-3, Ap-4 if your a marine and AP-5 if you go maximum Chadmaris Hellblaster.

I like that they're changing stats. But I think they are doing so poorly.

The stat line should be doing "most of the heavy lifting," as GW promised in the previews for 8th edition. Special rules are for flavor and providing units with unique strengths, weaknesses, or tactical capabilities.

I've said it many times before, and will continue to do so until it is no longer true: the core of 40k is too shallow to allow for meaningful differences and choices, ergo, GW pastes special rules band-aids over everything. To make units and armies behave differently on the table, without bloat, means having more core rules they can interact with.

Ignoring AP-1/AP-2 is a clunky solution- really they should have made light vehicles (eg Rhinos) 3+ save, proper tanks 2+ save, and then superheavy vehicles or extremely tough ones could be 1+ save.

You should want to bring AT weapons because they're the ones with enough armor penetration to deal with the enemy armor, not because of some arbitrary rule that renders anything short of AP-3 equally effective.

ATM high AP is not valuable, and one of the two main reasons (the other being invulns everywhere) is because you don't need a lot of AP to mitigate a 3+ save.

The increase in wounds on heavy infantry and an increase in damage on weapons that specialize against them represents a greater stratification of roles. Making tanks be uniquely vulnerable to specifically anti-tank weapons seems a logical extension.

 catbarf wrote:
Ignoring AP-1/AP-2 is a clunky solution- really they should have made light vehicles (eg Rhinos) 3+ save, proper tanks 2+ save, and then superheavy vehicles or extremely tough ones could be 1+ save.

You should want to bring AT weapons because they're the ones with enough armor penetration to deal with the enemy armor, not because of some arbitrary rule that renders anything short of AP-3 equally effective.

ATM high AP is not valuable, and one of the two main reasons (the other being invulns everywhere) is because you don't need a lot of AP to mitigate a 3+ save.

The increase in wounds on heavy infantry and an increase in damage on weapons that specialize against them represents a greater stratification of roles. Making tanks be uniquely vulnerable to specifically anti-tank weapons seems a logical extension.

I would echo this and add that in most cases, the improved armour saves for vehicles should replace invulnerable saves. Particularly for heavily-armoured vehicles like Knights.

 vipoid wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
Ignoring AP-1/AP-2 is a clunky solution- really they should have made light vehicles (eg Rhinos) 3+ save, proper tanks 2+ save, and then superheavy vehicles or extremely tough ones could be 1+ save.

You should want to bring AT weapons because they're the ones with enough armor penetration to deal with the enemy armor, not because of some arbitrary rule that renders anything short of AP-3 equally effective.

ATM high AP is not valuable, and one of the two main reasons (the other being invulns everywhere) is because you don't need a lot of AP to mitigate a 3+ save.

The increase in wounds on heavy infantry and an increase in damage on weapons that specialize against them represents a greater stratification of roles. Making tanks be uniquely vulnerable to specifically anti-tank weapons seems a logical extension.

I would echo this and add that in most cases, the improved armour saves for vehicles should replace invulnerable saves. Particularly for heavily-armoured vehicles like Knights.

I think I agree, and I especially like the idea that tough tanks being given a 1+ save that is unfailable. Land Raider? Monolith? 1+ save. That would put a Lascannon at a 4+ save and a Multimelta at a 5+. . . and a Lasgun at "F U for pointing that at me."

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Galas wrote:
I believe all kind of tanks and vehicles should probably just have double the wounds they have right now with a increase in cost of something like 30-50%. But I doubt thats gonna happen. I don't find a problem with small arms shooting and plinking some wounds to vehicles.

Ignoring Ap -1 and AP -2 would accomplish much the same. That way small arms can still technically fish for wounds but it's much less likely and even things like autocannons and plasma would still give tanks their full save. This makes those mid-range weapons worse at tank hunting and forces people to bring proper anti-tank if they want to damage armor efficiently.

Tanks ignoring the AP of Krak missiles and Autocannons is a way to fix the problem? I'll beg to differ.

If they decide they want to reduce the effectiveness of small arms against tanks, have it based on the Strength of the Weapon, not the AP value. Something like:

Armored Hull: Gain +1 Armor Save versus shooting attacks of weapons S5 or lower.

When 8th rolled around Land Raiders had been ignoring Autocannons for about the previous 20 years, and during that time a Krak Missile only Glanced Land Raiders on 6s.

 alextroy wrote:
...If they decide they want to reduce the effectiveness of small arms against tanks, have it based on the Strength of the Weapon, not the AP value...

So...like the 7e vehicle damage rules?

 vipoid wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
Ignoring AP-1/AP-2 is a clunky solution- really they should have made light vehicles (eg Rhinos) 3+ save, proper tanks 2+ save, and then superheavy vehicles or extremely tough ones could be 1+ save.

You should want to bring AT weapons because they're the ones with enough armor penetration to deal with the enemy armor, not because of some arbitrary rule that renders anything short of AP-3 equally effective.

ATM high AP is not valuable, and one of the two main reasons (the other being invulns everywhere) is because you don't need a lot of AP to mitigate a 3+ save.

The increase in wounds on heavy infantry and an increase in damage on weapons that specialize against them represents a greater stratification of roles. Making tanks be uniquely vulnerable to specifically anti-tank weapons seems a logical extension.

I would echo this and add that in most cases, the improved armour saves for vehicles should replace invulnerable saves. Particularly for heavily-armoured vehicles like Knights.

Armour saves and better toughness, so you need actual anti-tank weapons to destroy heavy armour. Stuff like knights and Land Raiders should be T9 2+, no invuls. It works. My Fellblade actually feels like a TANK.

As long as the gift of arbitrary stat changes continues on to other factions it's fine. Otherwise 9e will be dead for me in the water.

While I love having overpowered 5 point grots (Four bodies for the price of ONE marine!) a bit of thoughtfulness and fluffiness would go a long way

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Problem I have with the wound increases is that it is now more efficient (in terms of units destroyed) to shoot your small arms at a Predator tank than at a Tactical Squad.

It takes 120 bolter hits to kill the tactical squad, and 99 bolter hits to kill a Predator.

We have entered an age when, if I want to destroy the enemy army, it is better to shoot my small arms at tanks and my heavy weapons at infantry.

Your math is wrong.

90 shots to kill 5 tacs.
90 * .666 * .5 * .333 = 9.98 wounds

148 for a predator
148 * .666 * .333 * .333 = 10.9 wounds

The premise is also ridiculous when a tank can be at 36 to 48" where bolters are 24".

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Problem I have with the wound increases is that it is now more efficient (in terms of units destroyed) to shoot your small arms at a Predator tank than at a Tactical Squad.

It takes 120 bolter hits to kill the tactical squad, and 99 bolter hits to kill a Predator.

We have entered an age when, if I want to destroy the enemy army, it is better to shoot my small arms at tanks and my heavy weapons at infantry.

Your math is wrong.

90 shots to kill 5 tacs.
90 * .666 * .5 * .333 = 9.98 wounds

148 for a predator
148 * .666 * .333 * .333 = 10.9 wounds

The premise is also ridiculous when a tank can be at 36 to 48" where bolters are 24".

The 99 shot number may come off of factoring in Captain/Lieutenant rerolls. You're also assuming he's talking about a 5-man Tactical squad and not a 10-man Tactical squad.

 AnomanderRake wrote:


The 99 shot number may come off of factoring in Captain/Lieutenant rerolls. You're also assuming he's talking about a 5-man Tactical squad and not a 10-man Tactical squad.

Why would he use rerolls against one target, but not the other? 5 tacs cost 90 points now. 10 would be 180 and the math would still be off. A predator without guns is 90. If you want to add guns to the predator we can see how well the heavy bolters do while regular bolters plink on it.

His math was Bolt Rifles or Bolters in Tactical Doctrine, vs a 10 man Tac squad. No rerolls.

120 x .666 x .5 x .5 = 19.98
99 x .666 x .333 x .5 = 10.97

 Insectum7 wrote:
His math was Bolt Rifles or Bolters in Tactical Doctrine, vs a 10 man Tac squad. No rerolls.

120 x .666 x .5 x .5 = 19.98
99 x .666 x .333 x .5 = 10.97

So he's comparing a unit with a base cost that is double and making no allowance for what the predator's weapons have to say about it. And we're talking about a unit the cost of the predator standing still for 5 rounds while a predator sits in range to get shot by them. As if that is somehow some indication of the predator not being tough versus small arms. Similarly 45 HB shots kills 10 Tacs, but leaves the predator on 1 wound.

There's a million ways we can cut this and it's why mathhammer will always be just a tool.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
His math was Bolt Rifles or Bolters in Tactical Doctrine, vs a 10 man Tac squad. No rerolls.

120 x .666 x .5 x .5 = 19.98
99 x .666 x .333 x .5 = 10.97

So he's comparing a unit with a base cost that is double and making no allowance for what the predator's weapons have to say about it. And we're talking about a unit the cost of the predator standing still for 5 rounds while a predator sits in range to get shot by them. As if that is somehow some indication of the predator not being tough versus small arms. Similarly 45 HB shots kills 10 Tacs, but leaves the predator on 1 wound.

There's a million ways we can cut this and it's why mathhammer will always be just a tool.

Mathhammer tells me that you can kill a Predator with bolters now, when in pre 8th you couldn't even harm it unless you were shooting at the rear armor. Mathhammer tells me that a single round of firing at the Predator with 10 Bolt Rifles is more effective than firing one Lascannon at it under the 8th-9th paradigm, meaning that it's more effective for my marines to fire hundreds of rounds at the tank, than to fire a dedicated anti-tank weapon at the tank. Can you tell me how many 5.56 rounds it takes to 'kill' an M2 Bradley?

Let's not try and compare a bolter to 5.56 or any other useless "real life" comparison people want to make.

If you think bolters are more effective then by all means go all bolters and let us know how it works out. Just don't stand there and tell us you're making a fair comparison when you put up a single gun against a whole squad.

I'll make it easy to see how kind of bs that is.

10 tacs v 9 tacs with 1 lc.

20 * .666 * .333 * .5 = 2.2

16 * .666 * .333 * .5 = 1.8
1 * .666 * .666 * .833 * 3.5 = 1.3

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Let's not try and compare a bolter to 5.56 or any other useless "real life" comparison people want to make.

Why shouldn't the game have some grounding in the effects of real weapons? Or, why shouldn't the effectiveness against targets be more variable by target type?

Lasguns are equivalent to Autoguns, which are equivalent to modern assault rifles, which are not shot at tanks because they're really ineffective against them, and you'd be wasting ammunition. But in the game those lasgun shots can actually do meaningful damage.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

If you think bolters are more effective then by all means go all bolters and let us know how it works out. Just don't stand there and tell us you're making a fair comparison when you put up a single gun against a whole squad.

I'll make it easy to see how kind of bs that is.

10 tacs v 9 tacs with 1 lc.

20 * .666 * .333 * .5 = 2.2

16 * .666 * .333 * .5 = 1.8
1 * .666 * .666 * .833 * 3.5 = 1.3

Oh I'm aware that the Lascannon is valuable. But in your example 9-man squad the Bolters wind up averaging more damage than the Lascannon, absolutely illustrating my point.

I think new stats are a good idea for some stuff, to make it differ from other profiles. But it needs to happen to all armies at the same time. And GW should lower the amount of army wide rules st least for SM.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Problem I have with the wound increases is that it is now more efficient (in terms of units destroyed) to shoot your small arms at a Predator tank than at a Tactical Squad.

It takes 120 bolter hits to kill the tactical squad, and 99 bolter hits to kill a Predator.

We have entered an age when, if I want to destroy the enemy army, it is better to shoot my small arms at tanks and my heavy weapons at infantry.

Yeah, I agree. Solution would be very simple: give tanks an appropriate amount of wounds and give anti tank weapons an appropriate amount of damage. If marines are 2W and HB are D2 then Predator could be 20-24 W while Lascannons and Meltas (the first anti tank weapons that came to my mind) could average D5-6 on every hit that manages to bypass saves.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dolnikan wrote:


In general, there are all these extra rules, but fundamentally, they add nothing to the game. They just add a pile of bloat that doesn't fundamentally alter the game experience.

Bolter discipline and doctrines add a lot actually.

Given the lack of clarity as to the size of the Tactical squad - and whether anything like Doctrines, Bolter Discipline, etc, were factored in - I think it is entirely understandable that people thought the calculations were wrong.