Switch Theme:

I am getting back into 40k. Is 9th ed any good?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in ch
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 BaconCatBug wrote:
I remember the hubbub/outrage when the Punisher Gatling first canon came out. A Heavy 20 weapon? What is this nonsense!


Well , at the time it atleast wasn't usefull as reliable AT.. unlike now where it actually can damage tanks...
which is also some great improvement of the lack of AV in combination with the Greatly majestic wounding table that has no issues whatsoever.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page
A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units."
Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?"
Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?"
GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!"
Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.  
   
Made in us
Master Engineer with a Brace of Pistols





washington state USA

i remember when the vulcan mega bolter was heavy 10-twin linked S6 AP4 rending

The saving grace of the punisher cannon is that it was only S5 and AP-





GAMES-DUST1947/infinity/B5 wars/epic 40K/5th ed 40K/victory at sea/warmachine/battle tactics/monpoc/battletech/battlefleet gothic/castles in the sky,/heavy gear/MCP 
   
Made in ch
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 aphyon wrote:
i remember when the vulcan mega bolter was heavy 10-twin linked S6 AP4 rending

The saving grace of the punisher cannon is that it was only S5 and AP-


Still find it dubious that i can get a 40 shot BS 3 + tank and consider it "bad" ...
Goes however to show how important AP-1 /-2 and D2+ are in the moment... i wonder why
/S

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page
A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units."
Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?"
Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?"
GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!"
Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.  
   
Made in gb
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






Not Online!!! wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
I remember the hubbub/outrage when the Punisher Gatling first canon came out. A Heavy 20 weapon? What is this nonsense!


Well , at the time it atleast wasn't usefull as reliable AT.. unlike now where it actually can damage tanks...

A leman russ punisher utilizing grinding advance does 2 damage to a vehicle, hardly what I would call reliable.
Unless I missed something, the best you can do is with a punisher is a tank commander tank ace (-1 AP) issuing orders to himself (why is that even a thing?) moving at have speed to do ~5 damage to a vehicle.
That might sound like a lot, but a battle cannon is still better at killing thanks than that, as are many of the other actual anti-tank turret weapons.

7 Ork facts people always get wrong:
Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other.
A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot.
Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests.
Orks actually do not think that purple makes them harder to see. The joke was made canon by Alex Stewart's Caphias Cain books.
Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor.
Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers.
Orks do not have the power of believe. 
   
Made in ch
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 Jidmah wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
I remember the hubbub/outrage when the Punisher Gatling first canon came out. A Heavy 20 weapon? What is this nonsense!


Well , at the time it atleast wasn't usefull as reliable AT.. unlike now where it actually can damage tanks...

A leman russ punisher utilizing grinding advance does 2 damage to a vehicle, hardly what I would call reliable.
Unless I missed something, the best you can do is with a punisher is a tank commander tank ace (-1 AP) issuing orders to himself (why is that even a thing?) moving at have speed to do ~5 damage to a vehicle.
That might sound like a lot, but a battle cannon is still better at killing thanks than that, as are many of the other actual anti-tank turret weapons.

Yeah i meant the later which is now partially fixed, the core issue is still though that i can just do 5 damage to a pred, or other leman russ, whereas before i couldn't.
But that is mostly a wounding table and lack of AV statistic issue...

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page
A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units."
Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?"
Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?"
GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!"
Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.  
   
Made in gr
Storm Trooper with Maglight





 Jidmah wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
I remember the hubbub/outrage when the Punisher Gatling first canon came out. A Heavy 20 weapon? What is this nonsense!


Well , at the time it atleast wasn't usefull as reliable AT.. unlike now where it actually can damage tanks...

A leman russ punisher utilizing grinding advance does 2 damage to a vehicle, hardly what I would call reliable.
Unless I missed something, the best you can do is with a punisher is a tank commander tank ace (-1 AP) issuing orders to himself (why is that even a thing?)


Orders will probably be linked to "core" once the new Codex comes around.
   
Made in gb
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






So you mean that LRBT will be CORE and tank commanders can only order CORE vehicles? That would make sense.

7 Ork facts people always get wrong:
Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other.
A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot.
Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests.
Orks actually do not think that purple makes them harder to see. The joke was made canon by Alex Stewart's Caphias Cain books.
Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor.
Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers.
Orks do not have the power of believe. 
   
Made in gb
Furious Fire Dragon






Herefordshire

The feel with tank warfare, I mean real tank warfare, is very much a game of all or nothing. Either your shell can penetrate or not. If it penetrated then that is game over for the target tank, even just the shrapnel will shred the crew and without crew it is just an over-sized paperweight. If the shell couldn't penetrate then chances are it would do nothing to degrade the operational value of the target. Just read any testimony of WW2 tank battles, that's how it went. If your tank was outclassed by the opposing tank, your best chance was to get around the back of it, because the economy of warfare dictated emphasising the armour on the front over rear.

The 40k rules for facings, AV and vehicle damage table looks like was written to recreate that.

   
Made in at
Not as Good as a Minion





Austria

with 40k based more in WW1 than WW2, and Anti-Tank weapons were less effective
penetration hits with non-exploding ammo (or those with too high penetration), if not hitting any vital module or crew member did no real damage (and could went thru the tank doing nothing)
yet non penetration hits still could cause damage inside to the crew as an explosion on the outside was not fully absorbed by the armour or let metal bolts come off at high speed




Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise 
   
Made in gb
Battleship Captain





Bristol (UK)

 kodos wrote:

penetration hits with non-exploding ammo (or those with too high penetration), if not hitting any vital module or crew member did no real damage (and could went thru the tank doing nothing)

This is a common misconception, British testing showed the spalling pattern from an inert penetrator was barely distinguishable from that of one with a small bursting charge. Hence they never used such bursting charges, and indeed sometimes removed and filled in the charges from American ammunition.

I've put a lot of thought into this sort of anti-tank dynamic (if my above comment didn't make it clear, this is a section of nerdery I'm passionate about). This sort of one-shot one-kill dynamic works very well in historical games. However, I don't think it's feasible in 40k.
In WW2, better anti-tank weapons were more powerful.
Whereas in 40k it's the same guns, just more of them. A Predator Annihilator carries the same lascannon as a tactical squad, just 4x as many.
That means the same anti-tank dynamic of one-shot one-kill doesn't quite fit. As much as I dislike the idea, the current implementation of just high toughness/lots of wounds actually does fit the game's anti-tank better.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/12/04 13:43:32


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Springfield, VA

To me, the problem then is that the game needs a redux.

Back in the day, a Predator Annihilator was a comparatively light vehicle. The actual tank the Imperium preferred to use when engaging enemy armor (that isn't a superheavy) is a Vanquisher, which acted more like a modern, long-barreled tank with fantastic armor penetration and high damage.

Think of it as a long-range ordnance meltagun that could swap ammunition types.

Of course, GW left this paradigm behind for... reasons? IDFK. So the Vanquisher became more like the Sherman Firefly (in that it couldn't fire HE) and the game as a whole lost the Ordnance Penetrating Hits table, which nerfed its destructive capability.

Finally, we get to today, where it's a shoddy lascannon.

The Vanquisher is actually a pretty good example of how GW's ability to model tank warfare in 40k went from actually pretty okay to downright awful.
   
Made in gb
Furious Fire Dragon






Herefordshire

 kodos wrote:
with 40k based more in WW1 than WW2, and Anti-Tank weapons were less effective
penetration hits with non-exploding ammo (or those with too high penetration), if not hitting any vital module or crew member did no real damage (and could went thru the tank doing nothing)
yet non penetration hits still could cause damage inside to the crew as an explosion on the outside was not fully absorbed by the armour or let metal bolts come off at high speed

40k isn't based more on WW1, that is literal nonsense. 40k is a pot-porri of plagarism for anything cool that ever existed in history or fiction. WW1 in the mix, but so is WW2, so is the Crusades, the Scramble for Africa, Roman Legions, Samurai Japan, Manga Japan, Lord of the Rings, Starship Troopers, Predator, Dune, Lovecraft etc.. GW's influence dragnet pretty much scoops up everything.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/12/04 14:10:59


 
   
Made in gb
Battleship Captain





Bristol (UK)

But for Space Marines the premium long range anti-tank was always 4xlascannons. Be that a Predator Annihilator, Devastators, or a Landraider.
For Eldar it was Bright Lances, etc. Even for Imperial Guard it was mostly lascannon HWTs.
Tau were about the only exception who went to railguns rather than multiple lascannon-type weapons.

Short range melta is.obviously a thing, more analogous to panzerfausts et al though and filling its own place in the anti-tamk meta.

The Vanquisher is just one unit in one army.
It doesn't define the anti-tank meta of the game, nor should it.
   
Made in at
Not as Good as a Minion





Austria

 kirotheavenger wrote:
 kodos wrote:

penetration hits with non-exploding ammo (or those with too high penetration), if not hitting any vital module or crew member did no real damage (and could went thru the tank doing nothing)

This is a common misconception, British testing showed the spalling pattern from an inert penetrator was barely distinguishable from that of one with a small bursting charge. Hence they never used such bursting charges, and indeed sometimes removed and filled in the charges from American ammunition.

it was the main reason why German soldier wore armour inside the tank and why the went away from using bolts to fix armour

and this effect was used against tanks in WW2 as the UK found out that their surface exploding ammo, developed against bunkers, was also highly effective against tanks as well
HESH was used until the ~1970s wre armour design changed into composite armour which made it less effective

so yes, you can knock out a tank by killing the crew or damaging the interior without penetrating the armour

 kirotheavenger wrote:

I've put a lot of thought into this sort of anti-tank dynamic (if my above comment didn't make it clear, this is a section of nerdery I'm passionate about). This sort of one-shot one-kill dynamic works very well in historical games. However, I don't think it's feasible in 40k.
In WW2, better anti-tank weapons were more powerful.
Whereas in 40k it's the same guns, just more of them. A Predator Annihilator carries the same lascannon as a tactical squad, just 4x as many.
That means the same anti-tank dynamic of one-shot one-kill doesn't quite fit. As much as I dislike the idea, the current implementation of just high toughness/lots of wounds actually does fit the game's anti-tank better.


the advantage of the current version is that there is no difference between a monster and a tank any more and why a laser cannon why the very same model killed by the same weapon because in one Codex GW decided it is a vehicle and in the next it is a monstrous creature

the problem with weapons being all the same no matter who carries them is a different one (as there should be differences in range and power)

the other problem is, what is a tank in 40k, as a Leman Russ is clear, a Phantom Lord not so much, Sentinel, Dreadnought, a Predator with Deamon Engine or a Carnifex? (I mean if a Dreadnought or Deamon Engine is a vehicle, a Carnifex should be one as well)

so the overall solution would be have a damage table for everything large enough and still use Health Points for all of them
a tank hit by enough shots were each single non did not enough damage to kill it, is still out of service
while the lucky hit killed it with one shot (and this would be the same no matter if a Leman Russ or Carnifex)

could be either a table to roll on, or just "exploding" dice that each 6 to wound doubles the damage caused
and make the larger Anti-Tank guns cause a fixed damage value or go with multiple D3s, like a Marine carried Laser causes 2D3 damage, a Predator Laser Cannon is 2 shots 3D3 damage

 SolarCross wrote:
 kodos wrote:
with 40k based more in WW1 than WW2, and Anti-Tank weapons were less effective
penetration hits with non-exploding ammo (or those with too high penetration), if not hitting any vital module or crew member did no real damage (and could went thru the tank doing nothing)
yet non penetration hits still could cause damage inside to the crew as an explosion on the outside was not fully absorbed by the armour or let metal bolts come off at high speed

40k isn't based more on WW1, that is literal nonsense. 40k is a pot-porri of plagarism for anything cool that ever existed in history or fiction. WW1 in the mix, but so is WW2, so is the Crusades, the Scramble for Africa, Roman Legions, Samurai Japan, Manga Japan, Lord of the Rings, Starship Troopers, Dune, Lovecraft etc.. GW's influence dragnet pretty much scoops up everything.


well the rules were written to resample WW1 style battles, might be that the Background is much cooler because it is everything you wrote, but this does not change the fact for what the rules were written for (same as Battlefleet Gothic was written with WW1 naval battles in mind)
and as long as GW does not go for a full reset but keeps parts of the legacy rules for whatever reason there will be problems

Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise 
   
Made in gb
Furious Fire Dragon






Herefordshire

 kodos wrote:

well the rules were written to resample WW1 style battles, might be that the Background is much cooler because it is everything you wrote, but this does not change the fact for what the rules were written for (same as Battlefleet Gothic was written with WW1 naval battles in mind)
and as long as GW does not go for a full reset but keeps parts of the legacy rules for whatever reason there will be problems

Except no, obviously no. Just back up that little piece of personal mythology with something please. You can start by explaining the rules for personal challenges in terms of WW1 trench warfare. After that explain the psychic phase.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Springfield, VA

 kirotheavenger wrote:
But for Space Marines the premium long range anti-tank was always 4xlascannons. Be that a Predator Annihilator, Devastators, or a Landraider.
For Eldar it was Bright Lances, etc. Even for Imperial Guard it was mostly lascannon HWTs.
Tau were about the only exception who went to railguns rather than multiple lascannon-type weapons.

Short range melta is.obviously a thing, more analogous to panzerfausts et al though and filling its own place in the anti-tamk meta.

The Vanquisher is just one unit in one army.
It doesn't define the anti-tank meta of the game, nor should it.


Space Marines are about the only one that's correct.

Eldar it was Fire Prisms, which were Strength 9 Lance IIRC, about equal to the Vanquisher in terms of penetrating and destroying heavy armor (AV14) but much worse against lower armor values (funny, that, different weapons being categorized against different targets). On balance it was small blast, though, I think. Furthermore, you could link fire, bringing them up to Strength 10, AP1. Much like the Vanquisher, they could also change fire modes between High Explosive (dispersed) and anti-tank (the Lance mode).

Imperial Guard were the army that had the vanquisher and Tau also had single-shot heavy AT weapons as you point out.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/12/04 14:46:02


 
   
Made in at
Not as Good as a Minion





Austria

 SolarCross wrote:
After that explain the psychic phase.


I understand, GW invented in their rules a completely new type of combat form that was never seen before without any kind of inspiration from the real world because exists "psychic phase"

so any discussion is pointless because of this little detail, that GW took over "Magic" from their fantasy game into a 15mm WW2 game to resample a WW1 themed skirmish games, everything the rules do is perfectly fine and there should be made no chances is it won't work in this world were a psychic phase exists any more

get it, I guess it is also this psychic phase that makes weapons mounted on the side of the hull, magically fire thru the tank on the other side
the rules are perfectly re-creating this world that was made without any inspiration of real life combat at all (because the psychic phase)

Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Springfield, VA

40k is not world war 1 themed except for Imperial forces. To suggest otherwise is to demonstrate a failure in understanding of what the other races in 40k even do.

In what ways is the Eldar army designed to meet a World War 1 aesthetic, play style, or... anything?
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





I think it is the satire of the ultimate futility of war that makes it about a WWI-style of warfare where your ability to gun down the other guy first is of paramount importance.
   
Made in gb
Furious Fire Dragon






Herefordshire

 kodos wrote:
 SolarCross wrote:
After that explain the psychic phase.


I understand, GW invented in their rules a completely new type of combat form that was never seen before without any kind of inspiration from the real world because exists "psychic phase"

so any discussion is pointless because of this little detail, that GW took over "Magic" from their fantasy game into a 15mm WW2 game to resample a WW1 themed skirmish games, everything the rules do is perfectly fine and there should be made no chances is it won't work in this world were a psychic phase exists any more

get it, I guess it is also this psychic phase that makes weapons mounted on the side of the hull, magically fire thru the tank on the other side
the rules are perfectly re-creating this world that was made without any inspiration of real life combat at all (because the psychic phase)


WW1 wasn't a skirmish game though. It was massed infantry pushes and artillery barrages. Tanks did not even appear until the late game, they were few and mostly used for attacking infantry.

You have literally zero reason for imagining that GW derived its vehicle rules referencing WW1 (the infantry & artillery trench war) over WW2 which even today is still the war that defined tank battles, especially on the eastern front. Arguably mech infantry fighting wasn't even much of a feature of WW2 being a thing more for the cold war era.

You have no reason, so maybe you should not pick this hill to die on?
   
Made in at
Not as Good as a Minion





Austria

and we saw the end of multi-heavy weaponed tanks before WW2 or in the early days
while having an effective anti-infantry weapon was standard
and 40k does not come close to WW2 tank warfare just because you could take many of them in your list

to get that way, tank would need to be much faster than infantry while distance and facings would matter while tank mounted guns would be able to destroy other tanks (and tank like monsters) with one shot while infantry weapons would be useless unless to get very close to the tank

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
40k is not world war 1 themed except for Imperial forces. To suggest otherwise is to demonstrate a failure in understanding of what the other races in 40k even do.
In what ways is the Eldar army designed to meet a World War 1 aesthetic, play style, or... anything?

not aesthetic but warfare, "large" formation that stand up in opposite of each other and clash

there are armies that are more themed after modern combat, Harlequin in highly mobile 5 model units with support

Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Springfield, VA

 kodos wrote:
and we saw the end of multi-heavy weaponed tanks before WW2 or in the early days
while having an effective anti-infantry weapon was standard

Again, a very Imperial perspective. Eldar tanks, just as an example, have a shuriken cannon/twin catapult (M2 or M240) or two and a single large weapon (e.g. Wave Serpent, Fire Prism, Falcon, Scorpion, Cobra...)
 kodos wrote:
and 40k does not come close to WW2 tank warfare just because you could take many of them in your list

No, it doesn't, which is part of the problem we're illustrating.

 kodos wrote:
to get that way, tank would need to be much faster than infantry while distance and facings would matter while tank mounted guns would be able to destroy other tanks (and tank like monsters) with one shot while infantry weapons would be useless unless to get very close to the tank

So literally how Eldar worked in 40k (24" move max on their MBTs with high probability single-shot kill main armaments and different armor facings that were immune to small arms, while the infantry could move max 12" in a turn and other infantry could only move 6)
The game you are describing is how 40k was until 8th edition.

 kodos wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
40k is not world war 1 themed except for Imperial forces. To suggest otherwise is to demonstrate a failure in understanding of what the other races in 40k even do.
In what ways is the Eldar army designed to meet a World War 1 aesthetic, play style, or... anything?

not aesthetic but warfare, "large" formation that stand up in opposite of each other and clash

In what war HASN'T this happened in?
Major company-size or larger armor battles have happened as recently as the war in Ukraine and Syria.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/12/04 15:26:01


 
   
Made in gb
Battleship Captain





Bristol (UK)

 kodos wrote:
[
could be either a table to roll on, or just "exploding" dice that each 6 to wound doubles the damage caused
and make the larger Anti-Tank guns cause a fixed damage value or go with multiple D3s, like a Marine carried Laser causes 2D3 damage, a Predator Laser Cannon is 2 shots 3D3 damage

It seems you agree that the current system is essentially correct, tanks have multiple wounds, and AT weapons deal multiple damage.
I think the exact implementation of this is pretty bad though, and again I think we're agreed on that - a Plasmagun is almost as good of an anti-tank weapon as a lascannon atm for Christ's sake.
Plus I miss all the extra stuff like facings, tank shocks, and rams. I also agree, monstrous creatures and walkers should be essentially the same.

But, I don't think the 5th ed armour system was that great for 40k, after careful consideration.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka




NE Ohio, USA

 SolarCross wrote:
Arguably mech infantry fighting wasn't even much of a feature of WW2 being a thing more for the cold war era.


Mechanized infantry were most certainly a feature of WWII.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/12/04 16:00:11


 
   
Made in gb
Furious Fire Dragon






Herefordshire

 kodos wrote:
and we saw the end of multi-heavy weaponed tanks before WW2 or in the early days
while having an effective anti-infantry weapon was standard
and 40k does not come close to WW2 tank warfare just because you could take many of them in your list

to get that way, tank would need to be much faster than infantry while distance and facings would matter while tank mounted guns would be able to destroy other tanks (and tank like monsters) with one shot while infantry weapons would be useless unless to get very close to the tank

You are mistaking the rule of cool for a simulation. Multi-weapons look cool, so GW plasters everything in multi-weapons because that's cool. That is not a simulation of WW1 tank craft, sorry but it isn't.

Oh and the reason tanks (also aircraft) are SLOW in 40k is because at 28mm scale even a large tabletop is not even as big as a football pitch at scale. Again this is nothing to do with simulating ww1 tactics because in WW1 they had artillery pieces with ranges in excess of hundreds of miles... If your IG Basilisk had accurate WW1 rules than its game range would be in excess of a hundred feet and you would need a tabletop at least that wide. Good luck with that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
ccs wrote:
 SolarCross wrote:
Arguably mech infantry fighting wasn't even much of a feature of WW2 being a thing more for the cold war era.


Mechanized infantry were most certainly a feature of WWII.


True, I agree. It certainly started then.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/12/04 16:07:38


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Springfield, VA

Also the whole "festooned with multiple weapons" nonsense is mostly Imperial tanks anyways.
Even Tyranid MBT analogues typically stick to one or two secondaries and a primary.
Tau are like that.
Crons are like that (mostly. The DDA's gauss flayer arrays are weird).
CWE are like that
Orks can or cannot be like that, but if you want to go with the "festooned with weapons" look, there's obvious reasons for it.
Drukhari vehicles vary like Ork vehicles do, but tend to have one big gun with no secondaries (Reaper) (Reaver being the exception) or infantry transports with man portable systems.
   
Made in gb
Furious Fire Dragon






Herefordshire

Also we should say that in 40k you have quite a number of vehicles with specialised roles that you do find in WW2 but don't see in WW1.

40k has:
Tank Destroyers
Cruiser Tanks
Infantry Tanks
MBT
APCs
Flame Tanks
Self-propelled Artillery

WW2 has:
Tank Destroyers
Cruiser Tanks
Infantry Tanks
MBT
APCs
Flame Tanks
Self-propelled Artillery

WW1 has:
Infantry Tanks only. An armoured semi-mobile machine gun nest basically.

WW2 even saw some grandiose schemes for Super-Heavy Baneblade equivalents, like the Landkreuzer P 1000 Ratte.


   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran






For 9th edition - were one to make some global house rules that didn't require stat line changes in the codex (acknowledging that such global changes would affect the relative value of units differently) - what changes might be made?

I wonder about brining back the old wound chart, which would make lower strength weapons less effective versus tighter toughness (or outright impossible to kill).

Could you approximate facing again by giving a +1 or -1 to your wound roll if attacking in the rear versus the front arc of the vehicle. Or perhaps a damage bonus when attacking the rear?

Is the overall balance concern that vehicles are too weak overall right now? Or is it just that they are too weak versus non-AT weaponry?

I also wonder about bringing back cover saves and the like for vehicles and monstrous creates - which seems like it should be a thing if the cover is sufficiently sized.

Any other ideas or brainstorms?

Want a better 40K?
Check out ProHammer: Classic - An Awesomely Unified Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition 40K... for retro 40k feels!
 
   
Made in gb
Furious Fire Dragon






Herefordshire

Just for fun, how would this be as a scenario for recreating a WW1 battle in 40k?

Each side takes a list comprising entirely of troops and aegis defence lines, enough to fill the entire deployment zone. Like a Green Tide or something.
In addition each side gets a number of off-map barrages it can throw down on the enemy deployment zone for the first 6 turns. Casualties from the barrages are kept secret. Then on turn 7 the players roll to seize the initiative. Whoever wins the roll can choose to "go over the top" which means leaving his deployment zone and advancing towards the enemy deployment zone or not depending on how lucky he thinks he has been with his barrages.
VP is awarded for making it to the enemy deployment zone. If no one actually goes over the top then whoever has the most soldiers left over from the barrages wins.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/12/04 17:14:38


 
   
Made in at
Not as Good as a Minion





Austria

it is the same problem since vehicles got hull points, non-AT weapons are too effective against them

 kirotheavenger wrote:
 kodos wrote:
[
could be either a table to roll on, or just "exploding" dice that each 6 to wound doubles the damage caused
and make the larger Anti-Tank guns cause a fixed damage value or go with multiple D3s, like a Marine carried Laser causes 2D3 damage, a Predator Laser Cannon is 2 shots 3D3 damage

It seems you agree that the current system is essentially correct, tanks have multiple wounds, and AT weapons deal multiple damage.
I think the exact implementation of this is pretty bad though, and again I think we're agreed on that - a Plasmagun is almost as good of an anti-tank weapon as a lascannon atm for Christ's sake.
Plus I miss all the extra stuff like facings, tank shocks, and rams. I also agree, monstrous creatures and walkers should be essentially the same.

But, I don't think the 5th ed armour system was that great for 40k, after careful consideration.

I think the problem now is that weapons with more shots are as good or better against tanks as dedicated anti-tank guns
having AT guns doing more and constant damage while increasing HP of vehicles would help
going with higher Strength and Toughness for AT weapons and tanks/monsters would be the better solution as the high strength won't make that much difference for softer targets (while the higher damage would) and everything else would be still useable but not as effective while without losing on heavy infantry

 SolarCross wrote:

WW1 has:
Infantry Tanks only. An armoured semi-mobile machine gun nest basically.

well, if you think the german anti-infantry tank was the only thing around than yes
the only thing that came later were flame-tanks

the other things a modern classifications, as WW2 had no MBT either (and Self-propelled Artillery is a problematic designation as all the guns mounted on tanks were called artillery by that time and the difference between SPA, TD and MBT was not there, as light, medium and heavy tank was used)

but as you also think that WW1 was just that one battle there in France and nothing else

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/12/04 17:17:52


Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: