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.

 Tyran wrote:
But it does show that modern combatants fire small arms at tanks with the objective of crippling them in the short term.

?!? What am i supposed to do now? Fire my SG 550 at a mbt ?
I am sure that will increase my survival or achieve my Goal.

 Tyran wrote:
But it does show that modern combatants fire small arms at tanks with the objective of crippling them in the short term.

It would be interesting to know how many times engaging a vehicle like this was tried, and how often it yielded actionable result.

It might have been the case that 100,000 rounds were fired at a column of vehicles, and the MOST that did, was knock out the optics of a single machine.

yukishiro1 wrote:
If the AT option was underpowered, the solution is to fix that, not remove my ability to find other ways to get to the same place.

Many AT weapons are underpowered at the moment. Buffing them is going to reduce the effectiveness of vehicles. Making vehicles more effective is, in turn, going to make non-AT weapons comparatively less effective.

How else is the new Eradicator/melta meta going to shake out? Either vehicles are going to get durability buffs that make them tougher to kill with non-AT weapons, or they're going to not exist.

Making AT weapons more effective intrinsically means making non-AT weapons less effective at AT if balance is to be maintained. That's a necessity. I mean, at a very basic level, making the AT weapons better at AT- so comparatively much better at AT than non-AT weapons- is increasing the specialization of weapons as I'm suggesting.

yukishiro1 wrote:
You consider death hex and psychically enhanced guns a "gimmick," while loading up on tons of lascannons is a "strategy." But that's just your own biases talking. Maybe death hex and psychically enhanced weapons is the strategy for a faction based around psychic power, and spamming lascannons is the gimmick. Who's to say?

I want to a game where people can make tons of different builds work using the full flexibility accorded by the game mechanics. You seem to want a game where everyone has to build similar lists that take enough of what you consider to be mandatory in order not to get stomped because builds you don't like are "gimmicks." You're welcome to that opinion, but it's not one I share, and it relies on a subjective determination as to what is a gimmick and what isn't that not everyone shares.

Well, maybe I chose the wrong word, but fluff-bending abilities and combos (do the TS regularly summon specific Nurgle beasts for the sole purpose of rendering tanks vulnerable to rifles? Are Imperial Fists Intercessors routinely used as tank hunters? Does every Farseer know Doom, and is that really supposed to be the lynchpin of their army?) that turn anti-infantry into anti-tank options sure feel like gimmicks to me as far as verisimilitude is concerned. Far more so than bringing anti-tank weapons because there are tanks.

But I'm not even saying one is better than the other intrinsically from a game design perspective. I am arguing against your claim that being able to turn anti-infantry weapons into anti-tank gives you more list flexibility. I think it gives you less flexibility, by forcing you into either taking specific combos or abilities, or a large number of AT weapons; rather than being able to either take a small number of dedicated AT weapons to cover that requirement while the rest of your list is unrestricted, or keep using those combos/abilities and taking an even smaller number of dedicated AT weapons.

Regarding 'using the full flexibility accorded by the game mechanics': Yeah, we used to have more options in that regard. You could plan on zapping tanks from the front with lascannons to fish for damage, moving in for flanking melta shots against weaker armor for surer kills, throw demo charges or meltabombs for close-range (but one-use) destruction, or take melee infantry that could peel tanks apart. These gave you lots of options for ways to cover your anti-tank requirements, and if you played to those strengths, you could do a lot of damage with just a few anti-tank weapons.

The reduction in specialization with 8th/9th has homogenized those weapon profiles to be generally mediocre, and now you are forced to meet a baseline damage anti-tank damage output to be effective. You don't have tactical options so much as a numerical quota for wounds-per-turn, because the tactical context that could make those anti-tank weapons incredibly powerful- and allowed an army with little dedicated anti-tank capability to potentially still be effective if played well- is gone. The baseline in 8th was that your army has to be able to kill a Knight every turn. That's incredibly restrictive; building an army to that requirement isn't terribly liberating.

Again, look to non-40K games. In Heresy, there are loads of infantry that can take meltabombs, and they're very capable of instakilling 400+pt vehicles. My options aren't just 'take lots of anti-tank guns' or 'find a special ability combo that will turn my rifles into anti-tank guns'; I can equip my infantry to be situationally effective and then play to that strength. That is a tactical choice that is largely missing from 40K, where equivalent weapons are blandly less effective, and a meltabomb that hits a Leman Russ has a 12.5% chance of causing any immediate detrimental effect.

In any case, players routinely accept that loading up on lascannons and not taking any anti-infantry weapons results in problems against hordes. Why is wanting to take no anti-tank weapons and still be effective at anti-tank more justifiable?

Edit: I mean, when it comes right down to it, previous versions of 40K allowed you to make up for a lack of anti-tank ability by employing strategy as a force-multiplier. 8th/9th does not, instead it allows you to use stratagem combos largely decided during listbuilding as a force-multiplier. If you're saying you prefer a strategic wargame and don't like when games are decided during listbuilding, surely you'd prefer the option that rewards smart play over netlisting?

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
But it does show that modern combatants fire small arms at tanks with the objective of crippling them in the short term.

It would be interesting to know how many times engaging a vehicle like this was tried, and how often it yielded actionable result.

It might have been the case that 100,000 rounds were fired at a column of vehicles, and the MOST that did, was knock out the optics of a single machine.

Possibly, but it still is a tank out of the fight for the next few days.

Also it shows that if you only have bullets, well shoot a lot of them and you may actually do something, which is better than doing nothing.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
yukishiro, you were asked a couple of pages back for a citation on the claim that MBTs in the Iraq War were taken out of commission by small arms fire, a claim which you were using to argue that lasguns hurting Land Raiders was, in fact, realistic.

Such a citation has yet to be forthcoming - please provide it, or concede that your point was groundless.

To be fair it wasn't him it was me and I told you exactlly where the information came from its in afteraction reports available from the DoD and MoD on the report of costs of repairing heavy armoured vehicles. I'm genuine not sure how publicly available it is without paying them money.

But it broke down the reason the vehical was removed from active pool, damage inflicted, replacement parta and costs time to supply parts and time to fit and release to service the vehical.

I will pointout we aren't talking actually doing this with a lucky shot or two the figures were something nuts like 1000s of round impacts and esentially all they destroyed was optics leaving the vehical combat/mission killed due to the crew being unable to see where they were going/shooting.

Most of the time the vehicals where combat ready within 48 hours hence the only place this info is really captured is in these spending documents or probably classified action/mission reports.

Ok. . . so to confirm, thousands of rounds were fired at this vehicle and the only damage it sustained was some broken optics, yes?

It didn't like. . . blow up and kill the occupants inside and throw shrapnel around. It could have still driven around if, for example, a heavily armored crewman decided to pop their head out and give commands or soemthing?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

yukishiro1 wrote:

Spoiler:

 Insectum7 wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:


In fact it seems like you're saying that 40 has never been realistic, but also saying that the mechanics of prior 40K were more realistic, at the same time.

That's exactly what I'm saying. There's nothing contradictory about that. 40k has never been a realistic simulation-based wargame,

When we describe the benefits of that system. You say:

A: It's not realistic
B: It's more realistic but 40K isn't meant to be realistic
C: Despite having been more realistic in the past, 40K has never been realistic.

Armor values isn't particularly realistic. It's probably more realistic than vehicles having wounds. But 40k isn't a realistic game and it's become less so over the years. Still don't see what you're having trouble with there?

Ok, so it IS more realistic though. That's something.

and flanking a vehicle DOES have strategic value, yes? You just don't like it.

Models killed aren't always necessarily dead. Sometimes they're just wounded too much and can't keep fighting. Treat vehicles like that instead of always explosions if that helps you cope or whatever.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also flanking would have a strategic value if it weren't so bloody easy to do it.

@catbarf
One could make the observation that if better AT weapons make vehicles more vulnerable, then reducing the effectivness of small arms against vehicles can counter-balance that oncreased vulnerability.

If you want to add in more AT options for taking out vehicles, that's fine with me. In fact, it's great. What I object to is your insistence that we have to eliminate the ability of non-dedicated-AT to meaningfully hurt vehicles as part of your solution, because it offends you that someone might have come up with a way to deal with vehicles you think is a gimmick.

You want the game played your way, and consider playing it other ways to be gimmicky and unacceptable. That's fine, you can have that opinion, but that opinion is subjective. It's not based on anything but your own preferences.

I prefer a game where there are different ways to skin the cat. If you want to take tons of AT to deal with vehicles, cool. If I want to take psychic support that can make it possible for my rubrics to deal with vehicles - not as well as dedicated AT, but well enough that I don't auto-lose any game against lots of tanks - why is that something that needs to be removed from the game because you don't like it?

I want a game with many options for how to build a TAC list. You want one where everyone has to take dedicated anti-tank weapons from a list you approve of, where creative approaches are brute-forced into irrelevancy because they don't fit your idea of what's acceptable. That's fine, but we're not going to agree that you're right and I'm wrong.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
But it does show that modern combatants fire small arms at tanks with the objective of crippling them in the short term.

It would be interesting to know how many times engaging a vehicle like this was tried, and how often it yielded actionable result.

It might have been the case that 100,000 rounds were fired at a column of vehicles, and the MOST that did, was knock out the optics of a single machine.

It happens a lot when your dealing with people who have zero other options like during those operations but as a tactic by a well supplied competent near parity adversary, never because it's not effective/consistantly reliable.

Just to rough out the maths thats over 300 magazines of AK fire ie were probably talking about situations where the tanks for political reasons weren't shooting back, like your probably talking fire without shooring back from maybe 30 muinets or more.

@Slayer: learning how to protect your flanks also has strategic value.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ice_can wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
But it does show that modern combatants fire small arms at tanks with the objective of crippling them in the short term.

It would be interesting to know how many times engaging a vehicle like this was tried, and how often it yielded actionable result.

It might have been the case that 100,000 rounds were fired at a column of vehicles, and the MOST that did, was knock out the optics of a single machine.

It happens a lot when your dealing with people who have zero other options like during those operations but as a tactic by a well supplied competent near parity adversary, never because it's not effective/consistantly reliable.

Just to rough out the maths thats over 300 magazines of AK fire ie were probably talking about situations where the tanks for political reasons weren't shooting back, like your probably talking fire without shooring back from maybe 30 muinets or more.

sure, but not firing for political reasons isnt exactly the paradigm 40k exists in.

 Insectum7 wrote:
@catbarf
One could make the observation that if better AT weapons make vehicles more vulnerable, then reducing the effectivness of small arms against vehicles can counter-balance that oncreased vulnerability.

So you want to make the MM better?

yukishiro1 wrote:
If you want to add in more AT options for taking out vehicles, that's fine with me. In fact, it's great. What I object to is your insistence that we have to eliminate the ability of non-dedicated-AT to meaningfully hurt vehicles as part of your solution, because it offends you that someone might have come up with a way to deal with vehicles you think is a gimmick.

You want the game played your way, and consider playing it other ways to be gimmicky and unacceptable. That's fine, you can have that opinion, but that opinion is subjective. It's not based on anything but your own preferences.

I prefer a game where there are different ways to skin the cat. If you want to take tons of AT to deal with vehicles, cool. If I want to take psychic support that can make it possible for my rubrics to deal with vehicles - not as well as dedicated AT, but well enough that I don't auto-lose any game against lots of tanks - why is that something that needs to be removed from the game because you don't like it?

I want a game with many options for how to build a TAC list. You want one where everyone has to take dedicated anti-tank weapons from a list you approve of, where creative approaches are brute-forced into irrelevancy because they don't fit your idea of what's acceptable. That's fine, but we're not going to agree that you're right and I'm wrong.

engaging vehicles in cc is also another way to skin the cat. Why not that option?

yukishiro1 wrote:
If I want to take psychic support that can make it possible for my rubrics to deal with vehicles - not as well as dedicated AT, but well enough that I don't auto-lose any game against lots of tanks - why is that something that needs to be removed from the game because you don't like it?

Is this strategy that you would like to see preserved actually contingent on letting lasguns blow up Land Raiders?

Or to put it another way: Why are you insisting that all small arms need to be effective against vehicles so as to preserve your single strategy, rather than something like specifically having psychic support make Rubrics uniquely capable of dealing with vehicles with their small arms, if that's actually intended to be a viable style of play?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

yukishiro1 wrote:
I want a game with many options for how to build a TAC list. You want one where everyone has to take dedicated anti-tank weapons from a list you approve of, where creative approaches are brute-forced into irrelevancy because they don't fit your idea of what's acceptable. That's fine, but we're not going to agree that you're right and I'm wrong.

This is a really tiring way you keep presenting it.

I want my melee-only Hormagaunts to be able to damage tanks from 24" away. That should be an option for me when building a TAC list. You want a game where I can only take ranged weapons from a list you approve of, where creative approaches are brute-forced into irrelevancy because they don't fit your idea of what's acceptable.

See how ridiculous that sounds? I'm not gatekeeping your army because I expect verisimilitude from the gameplay, unless your army relies on unrealistic/unfluffy tactics in the first place.

Ice_can wrote:


Just to rough out the maths thats over 300 magazines of AK fire ie were probably talking about situations where the tanks for political reasons weren't shooting back, like your probably talking fire without shooring back from maybe 30 muinets or more.

So sorta like how in 40k right now a guard squad rapid firing a tank all game with lasguns with the tank not firing back could take off 1/4 of its wounds, 1/2 with the double shoot order?

It seems like this might be pretty well modeled after all...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 catbarf wrote:


See how ridiculous that sounds? I'm not gatekeeping your army because I expect verisimilitude from the gameplay, unless your army relies on unrealistic/unfluffy tactics in the first place.

And your definition of "unrealistic tactics" is TSons using psychic support to buff themselves and debuff the enemy to the point where their warp-infused bolters can damage tanks.

We're not going to agree that TSons or Eldar relying on psychic powers to help them destroy tanks is an unacceptable gimmick that needs to be eliminated from the game because it offends your sensibilities.

yukishiro1 wrote:
If you want to add in more AT options for taking out vehicles, that's fine with me. In fact, it's great. What I object to is your insistence that we have to eliminate the ability of non-dedicated-AT to meaningfully hurt vehicles as part of your solution, because it offends you that someone might have come up with a way to deal with vehicles you think is a gimmick.

You want the game played your way, and consider playing it other ways to be gimmicky and unacceptable. That's fine, you can have that opinion, but that opinion is subjective. It's not based on anything but your own preferences.

I prefer a game where there are different ways to skin the cat. If you want to take tons of AT to deal with vehicles, cool. If I want to take psychic support that can make it possible for my rubrics to deal with vehicles - not as well as dedicated AT, but well enough that I don't auto-lose any game against lots of tanks - why is that something that needs to be removed from the game because you don't like it?

I want a game with many options for how to build a TAC list. You want one where everyone has to take dedicated anti-tank weapons you approve of. That's fine, but we're not going to agree.

The probelm is with the current wounding chart vehical toughness values are straight up far too low.

Like you can get rubrics to doing a wound on T7 3+ save tank/monster for every
1.8 hits with a soul reaper and every 3 hits with a bolter

The problem is that is way too efficent for the costs GW puts on t7+ models.

Is it, though? Were rubric lists tearing up the meta by gunning down tanks?

They weren't. Nobody in the history of 40k has ever said "my tank list is ruined because of rubric marines!"

yukishiro1 wrote:
And your definition of "unrealistic tactics" is TSons using psychic support to buff themselves and debuff the enemy to the point where their warp-infused bolters can damage tanks.

We're not going to agree that TSons or Eldar relying on psychic powers to help them destroy tanks is an unacceptable gimmick that needs to be eliminated from the game because it offends your sensibilities.

Is TSons using psychic abilities to gun down Knights with their bolters, including summoning in Nurgle beasts to degrade their armor, something that actually happens in the fluff?

Does this whole argument that rifles should be able to credibly damage tanks spawn from you being defensive over an effective, but not very fluff-accurate, game combo that you've based your whole army around?

yukishiro1 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:


Just to rough out the maths thats over 300 magazines of AK fire ie were probably talking about situations where the tanks for political reasons weren't shooting back, like your probably talking fire without shooring back from maybe 30 muinets or more.

So sorta like how in 40k right now a guard squad rapid firing a tank all game with lasguns with the tank not firing back could take off 1/4 of its wounds, 1/2 with the double shoot order?

It seems like this might be pretty well modeled after all...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 catbarf wrote:


See how ridiculous that sounds? I'm not gatekeeping your army because I expect verisimilitude from the gameplay, unless your army relies on unrealistic/unfluffy tactics in the first place.

And your definition of "unrealistic tactics" is TSons using psychic support to buff themselves and debuff the enemy to the point where their warp-infused bolters can damage tanks.

We're not going to agree that TSons or Eldar relying on psychic powers to help them destroy tanks is an unacceptable gimmick that needs to be eliminated from the game because it offends your sensibilities.

Except Guard with lasguns still have better odds than these wierd real life scenarios where the vehicals were ordered not to shoot back.

It only takes 234 lasgun hits to kill a predator not the 1000s that it should, the issue is the odds are far to generous.

Simply giving vehicals +1T or even +2T would solve a lot of the issues especially with GW about to massively increase the damage coming from alot of the problem categorys like Marine's who get free AP and heavy weapons in general not just specifically anti armour weapons being buffed.

 catbarf wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
And your definition of "unrealistic tactics" is TSons using psychic support to buff themselves and debuff the enemy to the point where their warp-infused bolters can damage tanks.

We're not going to agree that TSons or Eldar relying on psychic powers to help them destroy tanks is an unacceptable gimmick that needs to be eliminated from the game because it offends your sensibilities.

Is TSons using psychic abilities to gun down Knights with their bolters, including summoning in Nurgle beasts to degrade their armor, something that actually happens in the fluff?

Does this whole argument that rifles should be able to credibly damage tanks spawn from you being defensive over an effective, but not very fluff-accurate, game combo that you've based your whole army around?

In the fluff, Cherubael - modeled in game by a 25 point daemon host with a single S8 ranged attack with D3 damage on a 6+ to wound - blows the top half off a Warlord Titan with a single psychic blast. I'm sure we can find a lot of crazier things in the fluff than psychically-supported rubrics being able to damage tanks with warp-infused bolters.

But we're done here. You just went personal and tried to win the argument by claiming I have ulterior motives for my position, and there is absolutely zero point in discussing something with someone who insists that you're operating under bad faith. I don't even use that list any more, but that's not the point: the point is that there is no discussion to be had with someone who says you're arguing in bad faith, because it's an inherently irrefutable charge. I can't prove to you what is or is not in my head and when the discussion becomes about my motives it ceases to be a meaningful discussion.

Sorry, but unless you retract and apologize for the bad faith accusation, I am not going to be responding to your posts further.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Is it, though? Were rubric lists tearing up the meta by gunning down tanks?

They weren't. Nobody in the history of 40k has ever said "my tank list is ruined because of rubric marines!"

When you get to 12 soul reaper cannons with only their raw stats and presence (deathhex is an invulnerable saves) 426 points kills a 500 point Model that says yes. Given your shooting dedicated anit infantry weapons at a vehical and achieving a better than 100% return on points that's a problem.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
@catbarf
One could make the observation that if better AT weapons make vehicles more vulnerable, then reducing the effectivness of small arms against vehicles can counter-balance that oncreased vulnerability.

So you want to make the MM better?

Gw is already doing that. The question is whether or not they'll do anything to help vehicles survive.

Ice_can wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Is it, though? Were rubric lists tearing up the meta by gunning down tanks?

They weren't. Nobody in the history of 40k has ever said "my tank list is ruined because of rubric marines!"

When you get to 12 soul reaper cannons with only their raw stats and presence (deathhex is an invulnerable saves) 426 points kills a 500 point Model that says yes. Given your shooting dedicated anit infantry weapons at a vehical and achieving a better than 100% return on points that's a problem.

Um, to take 12 soulreaper cannons you need a minimum of 60 rubric marines. That's 1200 points just for the rubrics.. Dunno where your math is coming from. The way you kill T7 tanks efficiently with rubrics is vets + double shoot strat + prescience, not soulreapers. The only way you can kill T8 targets efficiently with rubrics is to soup in a toughness debuff so you can get the bolters back to wounding on 4s.

I stand by my point that nobody in the history of 40k has ever said "my tank list is ruined by rubric marines."

yukishiro1 wrote:
In the fluff, Cherubael - modeled in game by a 25 point daemon host with a single S8 ranged attack with D3 damage on a 6+ to wound - blows the top half off a Warlord Titan with a single psychic blast. I'm sure we can find a lot of crazier things in the fluff than rubrics being able to damage tanks with warp-infused bolters.

So realism is out and we shouldn't base the game on realism.

And fluff is out and we shouldn't base the game on fluff.

What does that leave?

yukishiro1 wrote:
But we're done here. You just went personal and tried to win the argument by claiming I have ulterior motives for my position, and there is absolutely zero point in discussing something with someone who insists that you're operating under bad faith. I don't even use that list any more, but that's not the point: the point is that there is no discussion to be had with someone who says you're arguing in bad faith, because it's an inherently irrefutable charge. I can't prove to you what is or is not in my head and when the discussion becomes about my motives it ceases to be a meaningful discussion.

Bruh.

You don't get to frame the discussion about how it's not fair for your army concept to be invalidated, and then call it bad faith when I ask if the fact that it would invalidate your army is the main reason why you're taking such a hardline stance against systems you have no personal experience with.

A Rhino required 18 S4 melee hits to be taken out of commission in 7th, it now requires 90. Even with power swords you only get down to 36, still twice as many as in 7th. A Rhino required 18 heavy bolter hits to be taken out in 7th, 60 in 8th, 30 in 9th.

The definition of take all comers is in the name, it does not mean casual or varied although you might have used it that way. Now to some degree language changes over time, but when words are taken to mean things they by definition don't and for which there are other terms then it's just abusing the language and making terms less meaningful.

If you read through articles online you will find what your list needs to be able to do to be a take all comers list, not that it needs to include a bit of this and a bit of that just because. Why does a list need anti-Rhino? Because otherwise you'll get wrecked by Rhinos. Why does a list need anti-Land Raider? Because otherwise you will be wrecked by Land Raiders. Why does your list need transports? To provide cover and mobility so you can stay safe and get to objectives. It's not "you ought to take some elites and some cheap guys so your opponent has a pick of what he'd like to shoot" or "if you only spam Ork Boyz all your opponent's Eradicators will be sad"

If you can literally take all comers then your list is TAC. If your list has a 10% WR against Marines and a 70% WR against Tau it's not a TAC list, even if you have a lot of different datasheets and different kinds of datasheets and included some units just because they're cool. You could say you tried to make a TAC list but if you consistently lose to SM then you've done a bad job, you've made an anti-Tau list and if you also lose against Tau you've just made a silly list, not a TAC list.

It's a bad idea to engage a vehicle in melee if the vehicle deals more damage than your elite melee unit because it can shoot while in combat. It'd be really silly if GW implemented a rule that allowed that. /s

 catbarf wrote:

Bruh.

You don't get to frame the discussion about how it's not fair for your army concept to be invalidated, and then call it bad faith when I ask if the fact that it would invalidate your army is the main reason why you're taking such a hardline stance against systems you have no personal experience with.

It's a literal accusation of bad faith - "why you think this is not why you say you do, it's because you have ulterior motives." I don't argue with people who make bad faith accusations, it's a waste of everyone's time.

We're done. The discussion is over. You ended it by making an accusation of bad faith. I'll continue to discuss the topic with others, but this is the last time I'm responding to you. I hope you find other people more willing to entertain your style of argument.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
@catbarf
One could make the observation that if better AT weapons make vehicles more vulnerable, then reducing the effectivness of small arms against vehicles can counter-balance that oncreased vulnerability.

So you want to make the MM better?

Gw is already doing that. The question is whether or not they'll do anything to help vehicles survive.

But how does reducing small arms fire make it ok for vehicles? His point wasn't vehicles get more durable. It was just that small arms do nothing and anti-tank gets scarier, which does nothing to make vehicles better, because most of them are already getting hit by big guns.

This whole bolters killing tanks exercise is a little gremlin that lives inside people's heads and rarely comes out into the light. Things like Rubrics - 10 do 6 wounds to a knight with reroll 1s and 2 CP and only if they stood still. This doesn't get you anywhere close to offing a knight. Either you smite the ever loving gak out of it (hard to do now since HQs slots are harder to come by) or you use AT.

I think people only ever look at Aggressors (and other marines) doing silly things and that shapes their whole world view.

Ice_can wrote:

It only takes 234 lasgun hits to kill a predator not the 1000s that it should, the issue is the odds are far to generous.

Simply giving vehicals +1T or even +2T would solve a lot of the issues especially with GW about to massively increase the damage coming from alot of the problem categorys like Marine's who get free AP and heavy weapons in general not just specifically anti armour weapons being buffed.

One shot doesn't represent a single shot. A guardsmen doesn't fire only 5-10 shots over the course of a 40k battle. A single lasgun attack is an abstraction of what is likely dozens of discharges. I don't think it's unreasonable that a single guardsmen rapid firing at a tank for an entire 40k battle (surely a battle lasts at least an hour?) could expect a decent chance that one of his shots might hit a vulnerable place and inflict a wound.


And giving vehicles +1T or +2 T would change the amount of lasgun shots required to destroy a predator by precisely zero. It would literally make no difference. So if your problem is 115 guardsmen worth of lasgun shots can destroy a predator, your suggestion doesn't solve that at all.

yeah i'm going to have to call bs on small arms fire doing even a mobility kill on a modern battle tank. i can't find even anecdotes about it. lot of anecdotes about tankers complaining about their rucksacks getting shot up though, and plenty of firsthand accounts stating small arms fire is basically useless.

snipers are and will always be a problem for tank crews out of the vehicle but that's not what's being discussed.

there were plenty trashed in the iraq invasion and especially the years after, and were generally taken out by IED's (made from anti tank mines, 155mm howitzer shells, or good old chemical fertilzer) and two stage RPGs which are specifically made to crack composite armor. there is no shortage of these weapons and the abrams is a big, expensive tempting target. so of course it gets lit up.

even the outline of the procurement document for the next gen infantry carrier scoffs at small arms as a threat, and these are only tanks in the loosest sense of the word and certainly not MBT.

so, i'm going to need to see the receipts on this one.

yukishiro1 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

It only takes 234 lasgun hits to kill a predator not the 1000s that it should, the issue is the odds are far to generous.

Simply giving vehicals +1T or even +2T would solve a lot of the issues especially with GW about to massively increase the damage coming from alot of the problem categorys like Marine's who get free AP and heavy weapons in general not just specifically anti armour weapons being buffed.

One shot doesn't represent a single shot. A guardsmen doesn't fire only 5-10 shots over the course of a 40k battle. A single lasgun attack is an abstraction of what is likely dozens of discharges.

And giving vehicles +1T or +2 T would change the amount of lasgun shots required to destroy a predator by precisely zero. It would literally make no difference. So if your problem is 115 guardsmen worth of lasgun shots can destroy a predator, your suggestion doesn't solve that at all.

May issue is more with punishers, onslaught, plasma, grav, disis, new heavy bolters etc ie all the spammed medium strength stuff that needs the S to wound Marines as they're now hitting T5 with 50% of their infantry FFS. While MBT's only see a 16% shift in durability. The flatter wounding chart means you need bigger shifts in T to have a meaningful impact on the results especially when you start handing out +1 to wound rolls, reroll wound rolls and all the other wombo combos you can build-up.

The stats were too compressed ok cool so why are we still stuck in editions where 90% of the game lives in T3, T4, T5, T7 &T8. It leads to some seriously bad scaling between targets with the new everythind hurts wound chart.

yukishiro1 wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

Bruh.

You don't get to frame the discussion about how it's not fair for your army concept to be invalidated, and then call it bad faith when I ask if the fact that it would invalidate your army is the main reason why you're taking such a hardline stance against systems you have no personal experience with.

It's a literal accusation of bad faith - "why you think this is not why you say you do, it's because you have ulterior motives." I don't argue with people who make bad faith accusations, it's a waste of everyone's time.

We're done. The discussion is over. You ended it by making an accusation of bad faith. I'll continue to discuss the topic with others, but this is the last time I'm responding to you. I hope you find other people more willing to entertain your style of argument.

I'll retract my 'accusation of bad faith', and take your word that you are arguing objectively out of what you feel is best for the game.

Frankly, it was a sincere question, because your examples with the Rubrics keep looping back to how the proposed changes affect your army. If you don't want people thinking your arguments might stem from how the ideas would affect you personally, don't base them on how your current army build would be invalidated- especially if your counter-arguments against proposed alternatives amount to thought experiments because you have no actual experience with them. That's all.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
But how does reducing small arms fire make it ok for vehicles? His point wasn't vehicles get more durable. It was just that small arms do nothing and anti-tank gets scarier, which does nothing to make vehicles better, because most of them are already getting hit by big guns.

This whole bolters killing tanks exercise is a little gremlin that lives inside people's heads and rarely comes out into the light. Things like Rubrics - 10 do 6 wounds to a knight with reroll 1s and 2 CP and only if they stood still. This doesn't get you anywhere close to offing a knight. Either you smite the ever loving gak out of it (hard to do now since HQs slots are harder to come by) or you use AT.

I think people only ever look at Aggressors (and other marines) doing silly things and that shapes their whole world view.

Bolters/lasguns killing tanks in a vacuum are the boogeyman that rarely actually happens; but they're the extreme example of mechanics that have other, much more significant effects- like Punishers being better at anti-tank than Vanquishers are. The problem isn't that those weapons overperform in general, because they're about where they should be for anti-horde; they just overperform against heavy vehicles.

It wouldn't take much adjustment to shift the balance. A 2+ save on vehicles would do a lot, likely balanced by a reduction in wounds. This would make them harder to kill with high-volume, low-AP fire, but dedicated AT weapons would be significantly more effective.

This would in turn also make them more resilient to small arms. Whether that's acceptable or not is really the last few pages of discussion.

If we wanted to get really fancy it wouldn't be hard to bring back facings, represented with multiple save values. So maybe a Chimera could be 2+ from the front, but 3+ from other angles. Using FoW's simple arc-determination system would eliminate the complaints about determining facing with non-boxy vehicles.

I think it'd probably be better just to give vehicles more wounds or a base 2+ rather than more toughness. Your solution wouldn't actually make it significantly harder to wound vehicles with those things either. You'd need to bring vehicles to T10 to change the math on S5 weapons wounding them, for example.

The fundamental problem is stat inflation. But that's a different conversation.