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.

sorry i don't see the comparison-the difference on table top between a marine carry a heavy weapon and a team of guardsmen is still actually pretty glaring. this is the heavy bolter for comparison

Both have 1 heavy weapon integral to the basic infantry squad.
And dedicated teams of 3-4 heavy weapons.
Vehicles mounting 3-4 heavy weapons.
The fact that the marine is holding it in his hands and the Guardsman aren't is, from a tabletop perspective, irrelevant.

As I said, the Guardsman are using that heavy bolter the same way as they would a lascannon.
Which is the same way an anti-tank rifle or heavy machine gun would be used in WW2.

Hence, a lascannon can't be considered comparable to a high velocity anti-tank gun.
Which then follows that an anti-tank system that works for a game focused around anti-tank guns is not suitable for 40k, a game focused around lascannon 'anti-tank rifles'.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
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.

History, WWII - present, disagrees with you.
And 40k is only inspired by history & reality, not a simulation of it.

ccs wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:
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.

History, WWII - present, disagrees with you.
And 40k is only inspired by history & reality, not a simulation of it.

I don't think history does disagree with me.
In 40k a lascannon is operated by 1-2 infantry models, and moved at the same pace as the model would otherwise.
If we continue comparing to WW2/bolt action with the high velocity AT gun analogy, you're looking at a crew more like 4-8 people, and to do any sort of practical movement you need to haul it around with horses or vehicles. Very different.
In 40k a lascannon is handled like an anti-tank rifle, heavy machine gun, or similar small crew-served weapon. WW2 infantry AT had pitifully short range so is a different beast.
In more modern times you have ATGMs with comparable capability to the AT guns get more mobile, but are still issued on approximately the same basis. Whereas light infantry carried RPGs/similar get longer range they're still limited in ways lascannons aren't, such as amount of ammo.
Tanks still mount a single, powerful, gun. Unlike Predators or Leman Russes.

As you so accurately put - 40k is only inspired by reality.
So a system appropriate for a game simulating reality (such as Bolt Action) is not appropriate for 40k, because it's just not the same.

Everyone I guess has just decided to ignore my point that no, tanks in 40k do not mount man portable weapons except in secondary roles EXCEPT IMPERIUM TANKS which in the canon are explicitly backwards and lower tech.

And even most of *them* have a non-man-portable heavy weapon in the turret. The Predator is not the standard Imperial tank.

This is literally one of the stranger arguments that I've encountered recently on these forums.

What is even being argued about? To what extent 40K weapons have analogies to WW2 weapons and therefore whether 40K rules should handle vehicles in a more "realistic" (or whatever) way? Bizarre.

 kirotheavenger wrote:

Tanks still mount a single, powerful, gun. Unlike Predators or Leman Russes.

I think all or most of the LRBT variants actually do have a single powerful gun: Vanquisher, Demolisher, Punisher, Battlecannon one, the plasma one etc. You can festoon them with extra secondary weapons but I think they are all optional upgrades. None of those main weapons are man portable even for space marines.

I think the Predator would be classed as a Cruiser, Cavalry or Light Tank. It has the same hull as a Rhino which is just an APC.

I'm really not going to get caught up on exactly which sub-type of tank a 40k is, if nothing out it's not relevant to the point.

 Mezmorki wrote:

What is even being argued about? To what extent 40K weapons have analogies to WW2 weapons and therefore whether 40K rules should handle vehicles in a more "realistic" (or whatever) way? Bizarre.

That's pretty much it.
I think how vehicle rules should be implemented is a good discussion to have.
5th seems to be very popular across Dakka and it gives a strongly contrasting vehicle behaviour to today. And the popularity of 5th here suggests it's a widely held opinion.

Space Marines are easily the single most popular faction around. So any discussion of whether or not a vehicle mechanic is going to work is going to inherently centre around them.
It's not like a Predator is some niche vehicle that is unlikely to see the tabletop (although GW appears to be trying to change that).
Space Marines may represent the worst case scenario in terms of matching real life, I think you'll be hard pressed to argue that it's also not the most common scenario.

 SolarCross wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:

Tanks still mount a single, powerful, gun. Unlike Predators or Leman Russes.

I think all or most of the LRBT variants actually do have a single powerful gun: Vanquisher, Demolisher, Punisher, Battlecannon one, the plasma one etc. You can festoon them with extra secondary weapons but I think they are all optional upgrades. None of those main weapons are man portable even for space marines.

I think the Predator would be classed as a Cruiser, Cavalry or Light Tank. It has the same hull as a Rhino which is just an APC.

There's an argument for the Exterminator Autocannon just being a pair of Autocannon, but as far as I can see the other turret weapons in the IG 'dex aren't man-portable weapons (or pairs thereof).

In terms of secondary weapons on the Russ, you do have to have a hull weapon (HB/HF/LC), but the sponsons are optional.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Everyone I guess has just decided to ignore my point that no, tanks in 40k do not mount man portable weapons except in secondary roles EXCEPT IMPERIUM TANKS which in the canon are explicitly backwards and lower tech.

Except for those Eldar types....

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The Predator is not the standard Imperial tank.

If you're a SM it is.

ccs wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Everyone I guess has just decided to ignore my point that no, tanks in 40k do not mount man portable weapons except in secondary roles EXCEPT IMPERIUM TANKS which in the canon are explicitly backwards and lower tech.

Except for those Eldar types...

Depends on your standards for "man-portable". Eldar man-portable heavy weapons involve a lot of anti-grav tech to make them light enough to carry. And when we're talking about tanks rather than APCs the pulse laser, nightspinner, prism cannon, d-flail, Firestorm array, sonic lance, and pulsar really aren't man-portable.

ccs wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The Predator is not the standard Imperial tank.

If you're a SM it is.

They are marines in space though, the clue is in the name. That was the original concept before GW decided to turn them into Space Knights, Space Vikings, Space Templars and Space Vampires. In the real world marines don't usually roll around in tanks, that is the armour corps job. If they have that kind of gear it will be of the light sort, cruiser tanks rather than MBTs. Maybe one day they will get a proper MBT but then what is the IG for then?

 SolarCross wrote:
Maybe one day they will get a proper MBT but then what is the IG for then?

Primaris do, the Gladiator.

 kirotheavenger wrote:

 SolarCross wrote:
Maybe one day they will get a proper MBT but then what is the IG for then?

Primaris do, the Gladiator.

If you include Forgeworld then actually the old marines had a MBT in the Sicarian. I just looked up the Gladiator and it looks like a flying predator but its role is tank hunting seemingly, so that would make it a Tank Destroyer. Of course Primaris are really big so presumably even a light tank would count as a heavy tank for other smaller bods.

As I said, the Guardsman are using that heavy bolter the same way as they would a lascannon.
Which is the same way an anti-tank rifle or heavy machine gun would be used in WW2.

i should have posted this for comparison




PAK 38 anti-tank gun-usually a 3 man team-gunner/loader/spotter(gun crew commander)
Limited man protable over shorter distances (they just pick it up by the rear support struts and roll it. very similair the the heavy weapons teams we see on the table for guard for all heavy weapon options.

If they have that kind of gear it will be of the light sort, cruiser tanks rather than MBTs

Index astartes IV has an entire section on the predator and it is listed as a squad support light tank.

So think of it in WWII terms as an M5 stewart, M22 locust, m24 chaffe etc... usually fast, lightly armored and sporting a 37mm, 47MM and sometimes a low velocity 75mm gun with seconday machineguns.

The PaK.38 had a crew of 5, not 3.
Plus Imperial Guard (two man) heavy weapon teams can run around at full.speed with their gun. That's not limited mobility.

There is no tank comparable to the Predator in real life.
The guys that wrote the books had absolutely no idea what they were talking about, as they also stated the Predator's armour was equivalent to 200mm of steel, and a Leman Russes merely inches.

We ready established earlier that a lascannon was comparable in stopping power to a high velocity 75mm (PaK.40 crew is 6 btw), but it's completely different in terms of deployment.
In terms of deployment it's more similar to an anti-tank rifle or a machine gun.
Nor can you reduce the lethality of the lascannon because it's best weapon relied upon by many armies.

It's fool hardy to try and make equivalents to real life because there simply aren't any.

The PaK.38 had a crew of 5, not 3.

officially yes, in practice no

There is no tank comparable to the Predator in real life.

*cough*



M113A1 Medium Reconnaissance Vehicle (MRV) - Full designation Carrier, Fire Support, Full Track M113A1 (FS) Scorpion Turret[4] was an Australian variant similar to the M113 FSV, but using the turret from the FV101 Scorpion light tank,

Well look at that cute little thing.

It looks to me like the modern world is going the other way; lighter transports/APCs converted to light tanks have been a thing in the past, but the Israelis and the Russians have both started building APCs based on the tanks these days. So in that sense the Dracosan (Malcador-chassis transport) and the Crassus (Macharius-chassis transport) map to the real world better than converting a Rhino into a tank.

 SolarCross wrote:

ccs wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The Predator is not the standard Imperial tank.

If you're a SM it is.

They are marines in space though, the clue is in the name. That was the original concept before GW decided to turn them into Space Knights, Space Vikings, Space Templars and Space Vampires. In the real world marines don't usually roll around in tanks, that is the armour corps job. If they have that kind of gear it will be of the light sort, cruiser tanks rather than MBTs. Maybe one day they will get a proper MBT but then what is the IG for then?

Well I guess that depends upon who's real world Marines we're discussing.
While your pre & post WWII Royal Marines might not use much armor, the USMC has been using armor (generally whatever the most current MBT is) since 1923.
WWII, Korea, Nam, Cold War, Middle East, etc, USMC armor has been there & been there in force. Even if they aren't the units that spring to mind first.
The USMC is currently in the process of phasing out it's 4(?) tank battalions (that's 56-84 tanks + support per battalion btw) though. I think they're about 1/2way through the process.

 aphyon wrote:

The PaK.38 had a crew of 5, not 3.

officially yes, in practice no

There is no tank comparable to the Predator in real life.

*cough*



M113A1 Medium Reconnaissance Vehicle (MRV) - Full designation Carrier, Fire Support, Full Track M113A1 (FS) Scorpion Turret[4] was an Australian variant similar to the M113 FSV, but using the turret from the FV101 Scorpion light tank,

Crew weapons would often be served, in practice, by crews larger than the official.
Although even if they go tjr other way, Germany's chronic man power shortages is not evidence of similarity to a lascannon, because a lascannon is clearly far more widely deployed and more mobile than the 50mm (we also established it's more powerful than the 50mm).

Where's the sponson mounted weapons on that vehicle? Where's the variant with two powerful anti-tank guns? Why is it much less armoured than a Predator? (A Predator is 13 out 14 possible armour armour points).
A visual similarity is not really relevant.

Even a Leman Russ, a more clear call back to real life armour, mounts 3 large crew served weapons as *secondary* armament, no WW2 tank has ever mounted anything more than small machine guns as secondary armament, and normally only ~2. Post war experiments with heavier co-axs have all failed and we're back to 1 machine gun as secondary. Weaker in both impact and number than a Russ.

It's a baffling argument that 40k closely follow real life.

Where's the sponson mounted weapons on that vehicle? Where's the variant with two powerful anti-tank guns? Why is it much less armoured than a Predator? (A Predator is 13 out 14 possible armour armour points).
A visual similarity is not really relevant.

when they develop real laser weapons for tanks in real life comparable to a las cannon i'll let you know...otherwise this is the AC version
i mean the blitzer railgun is a thing but the power requiments would exceed a light tanks capabilities.

Even a Leman Russ, a more clear call back to real life armour, mounts 3 large crew served weapons as *secondary* armament, no WW2 tank has ever mounted anything more than small machine guns as secondary armament, and normally only ~2. Post war experiments with heavier co-axs have all failed and we're back to 1 machine gun as secondary. Weaker in both impact and number than a Russ.

You seem obsessed with the optional sponsons. that hasn't been a thing on modern tanks since WWII, it was purely a WWI land battleship concept that was mostly phased out between the world wars.




GW based their designs on a mix of vehicles including the predator and leman russ the latter with a hull based on this vehicle.

Hmm this seems familiar to the real world vehicle.



or how about



As for tanks with secondaries or multiple armarments......

her e is one M1A2 abrams variant with the standard loader hatch 7.62 machinegun turret, tank commander .50 call machinegun hatch turret, co-axle 7.62 machinegun and optional co-axle .50 cal machinegun.



one of my personal favorites-the terminator II russian fire support tank.



Twin-linked for greater accuracy

 aphyon wrote:
...

I rather fear you've missed the point something fierce.

when they develop real laser weapons for tanks in real life comparable to a las cannon i'll let you know...

Exactly! A comparison is silly and therefore rules cannot necesarily be comparable.

You seem obsessed with the optional sponsons. that hasn't been a thing on modern tanks since WWII, it was purely a WWI land battleship concept that was mostly phased out between the world wars.

You can't just ignore the optional sponsons because they're inconvenient for you, most people have them modelled.
As for sponsons not being a thing anymore - again, that's exactly the point I'm making!

GW based their designs on a mix of vehicles including the predator and leman russ the latter with a hull based on this vehicle.

Visually, yes. But as I said, visuals have nothing to do with the crunch of anti-armour dice rolling that we're discussing.
And there is a HUGE difference between the distribution and capabilities of anti-tank weapons in 40k to real life.

her e is one M1A2 abrams variant with the standard loader hatch 7.62 machinegun turret, tank commander .50 call machinegun hatch turret, co-axle 7.62 machinegun and optional co-axle .50 cal machinegun.

.50s are more similar to the heavy stubber or stormbolter you will often find on Imperial Tanks.
You were the one that initially stated a lascannon is similar in capability to a 75mm anti-tank gun of WW2, and I agreed. A .50, let alone .30 is not even remotely comparable to that.

I'm not here to discuss the visual similarities to modern tanks, because you're clearly right that 40k draws on real life for inspiration.
I'm discussing capabilities. And the capabilities aren't comparable.
So a ruleset that works for one capability will not necesarily work for the other.

All the tanks of WW1 were basically prototypes for the concept of bringing back armour to the field of battlefield in the face of ever deadlier guns by using a combustion engine instead of a horse or man to carry ever thicker armour beyond the limits of what flesh can push around. WW1 tanks are weird looking because they are all radical experiments in a new field of arms development. Check out the Tzar tank for the weirdest looking WW1 era tank experiment.



By WW2 the concept of motorised heavy cavalry was thoroughly proven to have value on the field. Innovation continued of course but much of it was about optimising rather than experimenting.

It is funny to think of it because we tend to see old things as "traditional" but it takes time to develop traditions so the first originators of a tradition are being anything but traditional, they are being pretty radical actually. So in terms of tanks WW1 was untraditional / radical but by WW2 tanks had enough development that traditions are getting bedded in to the concept.

40k is a year in which tanks in field use have designs dating back tens of thousands of years, lol. Everything is way past traditional.

My view.

8th was a massive and important change to the rules. 9th has learned and improved on that.

The game is now designed to be played with other people. I can't write that without it sounding patronising and I don't mean it to be. Its designed to be played with 'lots' of other people, not just a small gaming group. The ruleset is designed to be easy to play at tournament level. This I believe is the driving theme of the last 2 editions. Talk to any organiser and they will let tell you it is so easy to referee now.

This has led to rules simplification and a focus on 'combos' where card based enhancements influence core traits. The balancing of this occasionally struggles but GW have been (surprisingly for long time follows of the company) nimble at dealing with this. Speak to any faction player and they will grumble about a nerf of some sort..... this is inherently an indication of good balance attempts!

Specific focus has also been given to building towards the standard of 2k pts. I haven't played crusade but any gripes I've heard have been alongside a 'but its great fun'.

The game is very easy to get into, hard to master - the models remain superb, the IP is deep.

The numbers playing, the general demenor of the community, the embracing of the interweb and a solid ruleset mean the game is as well placed as I have seen it (started playing in 88').

I agree strongly with what 40kGuarddaddy wrote.

When it comes to older editions vs. 9th what I would say is this. I played 40k from 4th ed onward. I liked older editions, particularly 5th edition. However I have no interest in playing them now. 40k has always had an over the top, dumb, and unrealistic setting....and I love it. The modern 9th edition rules fit that setting better than the older ones IMO.

That said I do miss some things about older editions but not game mechanics like armor facings, AV, blast templates, etc. I miss things like the force organization chart, lords of war type units not being allowed outside of apoc, imperial knights not being a payable faction, etc. While I miss those things not having them in 9th is not a deal breaker.

I'd agree that 8/9th moved to be a lot simpler. But I dislike the direction they've gone with things like stratagems.
Plus, the rules seem to be more focused on selling new models than they do being fun and balanced to play.

I also don't think it adheres to the background as well as earlier editions.

Depends on which background, I think 8th edition completely overhauled the lore.
The Imperium is no longer backwards and fighting a losing battle.
Now they're advancing at record pace and are summoning vast crusades to fight back.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
Depends on which background, I think 8th edition completely overhauled the lore.
The Imperium is no longer backwards and fighting a losing battle.
Now they're advancing at record pace and are summoning vast crusades to fight back.

Which completely misses the point as to why 40k was great.