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.

 SolarCross wrote:
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.

That's not really how that worked in WWI (in game terms the side being bombarded like that was the defender), but sure, let's give it a try.

Kodos, you're displaying terrible knowledge of World War II.

Light, medium, and heavy tanks existed obviously.

But SPA and TD were also recognized categories. The United States, Soviet Union, Britain, and Germany all had specific doctrine governing the employment of self-propelled artillery and tank destroyers that were distinct from each other, assault gun doctrine, and line tank doctrine, indicating they were aware of the differences.

Certain vehicles were even called Tank Destroyers by their respective nations, such as the U.S. M10, the British Archer, the German Jagdpanther. These were distinguished from assault guns (where their relevant nation had them) such as the American 105mm Sherman, British Churchill Gun Carriage, and the German Brummbar. The Soviet Union blended tank destroyer and assault guns into the SU series (e.g. SU-100 TD and SU-152 assault gun) but still kep them distinct from light and medium tanks (T-series) and heavy tanks (bespoke names such as KV or IS).

SPA was also designated differently - the U.S. used the Gun Motor Carriage (GMC) designation, for example, while vehicles like the Hummel or Wespe in Germany did not receive PZKPFW designations, instead receiving the PzFH (Panzerfeldhaubitze, Armored Field Howitzer).

You're just wrong about World War II. The only concepts that have changed since World War II are the IFV/APC distinction (which grew out of world war II mechanized infantry that had no such distinction. The distinction was created in the mid-Cold War to differentiate between battle-taxi style armored infantry and armored infantry whose vehicles were armed and armored to fight alongside them in a line engagement) and the light/medium/heavy tank ideas being replaced by the cavalry (or reconnaissance) vehicle/main battle tank distinction.

40k is not a tank game. It has some factions with a lot of tank options (IG as the most prominent one), and it also has factions with little to no tanks, or vehicles for that matter. And even the factions that have a lot of vehicles can be played as pure infantry forces.

Seeking to have a realistic tank game runs the risk of alienating the factions and playstyles that do not have tanks.

 Tyran wrote:
40k is not a tank game. It has some factions with a lot of tank options (IG as the most prominent one), and it also has factions with little to no tanks, or vehicles for that matter. And even the factions that have a lot of vehicles can be played as pure infantry forces.

Seeking to have a realistic tank game runs the risk of alienating the factions and playstyles that do not have tanks.

Why can't a game have both realistic tank mechanics and good other mechanics as well?

Many other games (in fact, every other game I can think of set in an era where tanks are a possibility at all) are also tank-optional for all their forces, and yet manage to include a realistic-ish (moreso than 40k at any rate) depiction of tanks when they do show up.

 kodos wrote:

well, if you think the german anti-infantry tank was the only thing around than yes

All the tanks of WW1 were Infantry Tanks. An infantry tank is kitted out for resisting infantry fire and attacking infantry. The reason for the lack of anti-tank specialisations then is that tanks were a brand new thing on the battlefield and only the allies fielded them in any significant numbers. You don't need Tank Destroyers unless there are tanks to destroy. The iconic WW1 tank, the Mark IV, is as much an Infantry Tank as the German's answer. If you are being generous you could call it a MBT since it was kitted out with puny 6 pound naval guns instead of machine guns. It's primary target was enemy machine gun nests though. That kind of target amounts to an entrenched infantry position.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tyran wrote:

Seeking to have a realistic tank game runs the risk of alienating the factions and playstyles that do not have tanks.

At 28mm scale 40k is not going to be realistic anything game. 40k is meant to be evocative rather than realistic and being that it wants to be a mishmash of everything and it absolutely does have many tank-like model options for almost all factions you really do want evocative tank rules. As long as all factions have access to some kind of anti-tank then I don't see the problem. Even a pure infantry faction could still take on tanks with panzerfaust equivalents.

Because the 40k universe simply isn't built for realistic tank mechanics.

Look at WW2; (very rough idea)
Infantry anti-tank had an effective range that could accurately be described as "pissing distance". Even then you'd have 1-2 such weapons per squad
For any engagements longer than that, large anti-tank weapons were necessary. Whether those were towed, turreted, armoured, or unarmoured.

Compared to 40k; (very varied across armies)
Infantry AT is often the same guns as those mounted on tanks.
There are many squads dedicated to these weapons, sometimes long range and sometimes short range.
Large, single shot, anti-tank weapons similar to those in WW2 just aren't a thing for many factions. Space Marines have none, Imperial Guard have one such tank, Eldar have one such tank, etc.

In WW2, there was a great symbiosis between armour and infantry. Infantry needed the tanks to clear enemy infantry and support weapons at medium-long range. Tanks needed infantry to clear enemy AT and screen at short ranged infantry AT.
That doesn't exist in 40k because an infantry squad is often carrying the same firepower as the tank.

If you want realistic Second World War tank engagements, 40k just isn't that game.

More realistic than what 9th does, is absolutely something that could be achieved.
Increasing tank toughness and wounds, whilst increasing the strength and damage of dedicated AT guns could be an answer.

Although I feel we're getting somewhat off topic here. There's already a discussion on this very issue in the Proposed Rules section.

Realism is not even on the table, ever. I say the point is being evocative not realistic.

Don't get too hung up on realistic because I used it. I keep forgetting people get confused by that word.

I mean having better verisimilitude. being more true to the background lore of the setting.

In other words, being realistic within the rules set out by the reality in which our beloved game is played, rather than the reality in which we live.

Cinematic?

Nurglitch wrote:
Cinematic?

Yeh, that works. Basically I am asking for coherency between the setting/background/lore and the games we play on the tabletop.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Don't get too hung up on realistic because I used it. I keep forgetting people get confused by that word.

I mean having better verisimilitude. being more true to the background lore of the setting.

In other words, being realistic within the rules set out by the reality in which our beloved game is played, rather than the reality in which we live.

It's alright I figured you meant it that way.

The term I use is "fidelity" instead of realistic.

We all know that 40K is a "non-realistic" setting, but within the context of that setting, which includes tanks and armored vehicles, and units described down into individual model-level wargear options, what level of rules provides a "high fidelity" experience that translates the setting effectively to the play space.

If one is arguing that the game isn't designed to handle "tank facings" and the level of detailed that applies, then what about the level of detail and customization given to hero wargear options? Maybe that ought to be streamlined. Or you know, psychic attacks are too detailed and that shouldn't be it's own thing, and so on.

I realize I'm making strawman's here, but it seems like the issue isn't about not wanting more detailed rules globally, because if that was the case then less detail would be asked for in other places.

FWIW, I think recognizing that vehicles are fundamentally different from other types of units and their use and operations should be different, supports a higher fidelity experience consistent with what is depicted in the game's lore and setting.

I liked "evocative" that someone mentioned earlier.
The rules should evoke the feeling that you expect from the setting. I don't think 9th edition rules do that very well at all.

5th edition was closer, but I think that was more due to them being fundamentally different with mechanics like ramming. I would like to see those return, just not the one-shot-one-kill armour piercing mechanics.

Tanks at the moment just feel like overgrown infantry.

Considering Marines are basically one man armies in the lore while Tyranids are an endless swarm, I'm not sure "cinematic" or "fidelity" is entirely achievable or even desired.

Also ramming was a very broken mechanic.

What was wrong with ramming and tank shocks?
Particularly in 7th it actually felt rather pointless to me, as whatever you tank shocked just took a leadership test (read: autopass) and then moved out the way.

I don't know anything much about 8th / 9th but I think if you wanted to reintroduce facings in an elegant and balanced way you could house rule it in this way:

Every model with the Vehicle keyword (is that a thing?) can take the Optimised Armour upgrade for free.

A model with Optimised Armour has -1 toughness to all hits that can draw a LOS to its rear facing but +1 toughness to all hits that can not do so.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
...In WW2, there was a great symbiosis between armour and infantry. Infantry needed the tanks to clear enemy infantry and support weapons at medium-long range. Tanks needed infantry to clear enemy AT and screen at short ranged infantry AT.
That doesn't exist in 40k because an infantry squad is often carrying the same firepower as the tank...

Try: That symbiosis doesn't exist because anti-tank grenades are gone, because tanks are overloaded with anti-personnel weapons that are also very efficient AT because of stupid decisions about translating blasts into 8th, because the short-range AT weapons (a meltagun or fusion gun is absolutely the 40k equivalent of a panzerfaust/bazooka, or a LAW or RPG if you want to compare 40k to cold-war/modern warfare) are no better at killing tanks than longer-ranged general-purpose weapons available to the same units (plasma), and because there is no way to screen against something like a jetbike going 2d6+22" ignoring all terrain from the other side of an impenetrable wall except by physically filling the board with bodies. Play pre-D-spam oldhammer or 30k and you'll find the tank/infantry symbiosis is alive and well.

 Tyran wrote:
Considering Marines are basically one man armies in the lore while Tyranids are an endless swarm, I'm not sure "cinematic" or "fidelity" is entirely achievable or even desired.

Also ramming was a very broken mechanic.

Depends on how you execute it. I think the notion of playing a squad of Chapter Masters as movies marines is a great idea. Likewise Without Number really gave you that endless swarm feeling without conferring an overwhelming advantage.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
What was wrong with ramming and tank shocks?
Particularly in 7th it actually felt rather pointless to me, as whatever you tank shocked just took a leadership test (read: autopass) and then moved out the way.

It was too easy to bully units out of objectives.

 Tyran wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:
What was wrong with ramming and tank shocks?
Particularly in 7th it actually felt rather pointless to me, as whatever you tank shocked just took a leadership test (read: autopass) and then moved out the way.

It was too easy to bully units out of objectives.

Which was a trivial fix without writing any additional rules if you just put some tank traps down when setting up the table.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:
...In WW2, there was a great symbiosis between armour and infantry. Infantry needed the tanks to clear enemy infantry and support weapons at medium-long range. Tanks needed infantry to clear enemy AT and screen at short ranged infantry AT.
That doesn't exist in 40k because an infantry squad is often carrying the same firepower as the tank...

Try: That symbiosis doesn't exist because anti-tank grenades are gone, because tanks are overloaded with anti-personnel weapons that are also very efficient AT because of stupid decisions about translating blasts into 8th, because the short-range AT weapons (a meltagun or fusion gun is absolutely the 40k equivalent of a panzerfaust/bazooka, or a LAW or RPG if you want to compare 40k to cold-war/modern warfare) are no better at killing tanks than longer-ranged general-purpose weapons available to the same units (plasma), and because there is no way to screen against something like a jetbike going 2d6+22" ignoring all terrain from the other side of an impenetrable wall except by physically filling the board with bodies. Play pre-D-spam oldhammer or 30k and you'll find the tank/infantry symbiosis is alive and well.

A lot of those problems are simply problems with 8th/9th ed implementations of things, I was trying to speak fr a generic sense of what 40k could be.

You're absolutely right that melta is a great analogy to the panzerfausts/RPG type weapons.
Those being equivalent or inferior to plasma is a problem with 9th.
Likewise anti-infantry specialised tanks shouldn't be an issue, because they should be vulnerable to other tanks. That's a problem with 9th.

Screening against a jetbike is exactly the sort of fundamental issue with 40k that I was getting at. It's just not possible, so you lose that symbiosis. If jetbikes have anti-tank weapons capable of reliably one shotting a tank, even at close range, tanks have no real means to defend against that.

Dedicated anti-tank units in many armies meant mounting lots of S9, instead of a single very powerful gun, as would be the case in WW2.
The latter case lends itself to damage models empthasing single devastating hits, the former does not.

 AnomanderRake wrote:


Which was a trivial fix without writing any additional rules if you just put some tank traps down when setting up the table.

Assuming you were playing on a board you set up, assuming you reached a consensus with your opponent on how tank traps are supposed to function, assuming you were able to predict objective positions when setting up the terrain.

Also, never saw anyone do a successful Death & Glory. Stopping a tank with one attack or instant death means not even Monsters or characters wanted to risk it with such unfavorable odds.

 Tyran wrote:
...Assuming you were playing on a board you set up...

...Absolutely. This is a basic requirement of playing 40k in every edition. If your opponent or a third party set up the table and you think your opponent has an unfair advantage and then you don't do anything about it, then yes. Your opponent will have an unfair advantage.

...assuming you reached a consensus with your opponent on how tank traps are supposed to function...

Tank traps were defined in the terrain rules in 6th/7th and given as an example of how terrain should work in 4th/5th. If your opponent argues about whether tank traps should be passable to tracked tanks something's gone horribly wrong.

...assuming you were able to predict objective positions when setting up the terrain...

In editions where players placed the objectives you got to place half of them. If you set up terrain such that there are no places where you can put an objective that a tank can't bully infantry off of it something's wrong with your terrain setup.

Yeah meanwhile the realities of competitive play means that is not always possible.

And while blindly following competitive play at the cost of casual play is foolish, refusing to consider competitive play is even more so.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
...Screening against a jetbike is exactly the sort of fundamental issue with 40k that I was getting at. It's just not possible, so you lose that symbiosis. If jetbikes have anti-tank weapons capable of reliably one shotting a tank, even at close range, tanks have no real means to defend against that...

I think it's more of a problem with the inflated threat ranges in 8th/9th. The effort to simplify the "fly" rules by letting your jetbikes teleport from point to point instead of making them move around solid boxes, the longer movements, and the smaller tables in 9th make it much harder to hide from fast units than it used to be. Vehicles also used to get some advantage from cover, which they don't anymore.

...Dedicated anti-tank units in many armies meant mounting lots of S9, instead of a single very powerful gun, as would be the case in WW2.
The latter case lends itself to damage models empthasing single devastating hits, the former does not...

While I agree that that's not a very WWII thing spamming AT is very much a thing in a Cold War context. Look at Team Yankee (every rifle squad has a RPG/LAW attack) or the Wargame video game series (every infantry unit has a one-shot AT weapon per dude).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tyran wrote:
Yeah meanwhile the realities of competitive play means that is not always possible.

And while blindly following competitive play at the cost of casual play is foolish, refusing to consider competitive play is even more so.

In a competitive environment the table that let vehicles move around so freely that tank shock was that much of a problem is still badly-built, it's just the TO's fault in that case.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

...Dedicated anti-tank units in many armies meant mounting lots of S9, instead of a single very powerful gun, as would be the case in WW2.
The latter case lends itself to damage models empthasing single devastating hits, the former does not...

While I agree that that's not a very WWII thing spamming AT is very much a thing in a Cold War context. Look at Team Yankee (every rifle squad has a RPG/LAW attack) or the Wargame video game series (every infantry unit has a one-shot AT weapon per dude).

That's close range infantry AT though, and is a different beast.
Long range AT is handled by single powerful ~100-120mm guns backed up by ATGMs.

Whereas in 40k that long range AT isn't single powerful guns, it's mounting lots of smaller guns, such as lascannons.

 kirotheavenger wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

...Dedicated anti-tank units in many armies meant mounting lots of S9, instead of a single very powerful gun, as would be the case in WW2.
The latter case lends itself to damage models empthasing single devastating hits, the former does not...

While I agree that that's not a very WWII thing spamming AT is very much a thing in a Cold War context. Look at Team Yankee (every rifle squad has a RPG/LAW attack) or the Wargame video game series (every infantry unit has a one-shot AT weapon per dude).

That's close range infantry AT though, and is a different beast.
Long range AT is handled by single powerful ~100-120mm guns backed up by ATGMs.

Whereas in 40k that long range AT isn't single powerful guns, it's mounting lots of smaller guns, such as lascannons.

If you compare the stats from 3e-7e to the stats from Bolt Action (written by some of the same people) a lascannon is roughly equivalent to a late-war high-velocity 75mm gun usually fielded as the main gun on a tank (glances the best AV in the game on 5+, just short of the S10/pen +7 you'd see on the 88 or the QF 17-pdr). I don't think the designers intended it to be interpreted as a smaller gun, regardless of how spammable it's become since the Warlord folks left.

The spammableness is exactly the point though.
A tank will have one high velocity ~75mm gun, in 40k it has four lascannons.
It's too large for an infantry squad to carry, in 40k they'll have 1-4 such guns.

I don't consider the las cannon a "smaller gun" it's more powerful than an autocannon that is quite effective at dealing with lighter armor (12 or less)

Because a space marine can carry it along with a limited power pack doesn't make it small when one considers what a space marine represents in the lore. he is an 8ft tall (in power armor) walking tank. the physical size of the gun is not what makes it powerful, it's the strength VS AV.

The spammableness is exactly the point though.
A tank will have one high velocity ~75mm gun, in 40k it has four lascannons.
It's too large for an infantry squad to carry, in 40k they'll have 1-4 such guns.

Here is the rub though- in all the previous editions to be effective with 4 las cannons it has to sit still for 3 shots (remember one is twin linked) and the sponsons are optional. it is often not mounted on chapters that prefer speed over static defense. remembering that the predator is supposed to be a fast light support platform for fast moving marines. not a leman russ that plods along blazing away with a battle cannon, 3 heavy bolters and a heavy stubber(back when defensive weapons were S5 or less) laying waste to infantry by the score.

Lore and tabletop are two different beasts though.
A Space Marine in lore is a one-man army.
On the tabletop they're the standard foot soldier of the majority of armies.

Imperial Guard are the same anyway. A lascannon in size and use is more similar to a PTRD anti-tank rifle of WW2 than a 75mm PaK.40, carried in two man teams within squads. That's what I'm referring to when I'm saying it's a light-ish gun.
Hence, vehicles can't really be vulnerable in the same way as you need to somehow marry the theoretical capabilities of one gun, with the massed deployment of it.