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.

Kitane wrote:
Does melta even have to be AP4 at long range? Maybe it would be better to give it two completely distinct range profiles, not unlike the Seismic weapons.

That sounds like a great idea actually, because it seems to me like a heat ray such as described in the fluff would weaken the further away from target (I am no fluff expert, especially when it comes to imperial factions).

From a balance point of vue, a multimelta (or eradicator "melta whatever") more than 12' away could be strengh 7 ap-3 damage d6-1 (1 being the min), or something like that. It would really force a commitment, or offer the player using the MM the opportunity to use the "long range mode" for lighter target clearing.
Just like for charge distances, you agree with your opponent during the movement phase "Ben: This eradicator unit is indeed within 12' are you cool with that ?" "John: Yes, indeed you are" then you can do the rest and when the shooting phase comes, there will be no range issue as intent was cleared before.

 Lord Damocles wrote:
If only we'd had a system which made vehicles functionally immune to small arms, but more vulnerable to high strength dedicated anti-armour attacks.
If only we'd had that system for multiple editions until vehicles were made to be ffectively infantry with more wounds.
If only!

To be fair, under that old system a lot of vehicles spent a large amount of time being quite a bit worse than Monstrous Creatures.
Nothing changing the glancing/penetrating penalties and hull point number couldn't theoretically fix, but it's not like the old system was inherentally superiour.

 Bosskelot wrote:
I think in terms of general survivability a system of damage reductions could potentially work quite well.

Rather than anti-tank weapons getting any inherent bonuses (outside of stratagems or whatever) they just do their damage listed on the datasheet. Nice and simple. Whereas if anything that isn't anti-tank (or lets just say Anti-Large because of Monsters? idk) shoots at that same target, it suffers a -1 to wound. Obviously some things would be exempt from this like lighter vehicles such as smaller ork buggies, Piranhas, Venoms, Starweavers etc (representing their lighter construction and exposed crew) and you could even play around with certain weapons ignoring the limitation even though they're not "technically" anti-tank (representing Gauss weaponries old rules for instance). Obviously this doesn't do much for Bolters shooting at LR's or Knights, but there's a lot of hyperbole from people who think that those units are honestly vulnerable to those weapons when the amount of bolter fire required to bring down either usually exceeds most of the shots being fired across all 5 turns. However it is going to make a difference to mass Heavy Bolter or Autocannon fire.

You could even take this further and hyper-solidify this system by giving those single shot anti-large weapons penalties for shooting at stuff like infantry. Because that's also an issue.

I don't care how many bolters, or lasguns, etc you'd have to fire at a LR in order to do even 1 wound to it. Let alone actually bring it down.
I object to them being able to do even 1 wound to it period.

 addnid wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Just nerf the melta.

No need to change profiles or rules or anything.

This is a problem that was generated by a sudden spike in the performance of melta platforms. Nerf eradicator and MM and you are fine.

I agree with you but let’s not forget clown fusion pistols (maybe just limit the number of models who can take one).

Clown fusion pistols have the same rule they had throughout 8th. They are not an issue (yet)

 Lord Damocles wrote:
If only we'd had a system which made vehicles functionally immune to small arms, but more vulnerable to high strength dedicated anti-armour attacks.
If only we'd had that system for multiple editions until vehicles were made to be ffectively infantry with more wounds.
If only!

ccs wrote:
I don't care how many bolters, or lasguns, etc you'd have to fire at a LR in order to do even 1 wound to it. Let alone actually bring it down.
I object to them being able to do even 1 wound to it period.

Out of interest, how did you like grenades being able to glance tanks to death in melee in previous editions? Or shooting small arms at a vehicle's rear?

a_typical_hero wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
If only we'd had a system which made vehicles functionally immune to small arms, but more vulnerable to high strength dedicated anti-armour attacks.
If only we'd had that system for multiple editions until vehicles were made to be ffectively infantry with more wounds.
If only!

ccs wrote:
I don't care how many bolters, or lasguns, etc you'd have to fire at a LR in order to do even 1 wound to it. Let alone actually bring it down.
I object to them being able to do even 1 wound to it period.

Out of interest, how did you like grenades being able to glance tanks to death in melee in previous editions? Or shooting small arms at a vehicle's rear?

Depends what type of grenade you're referring to. Is it supposed to be an AT grenade?? If so, Your standard issue anti-personal frag grenade or eqv? No. Something crazy like a Vortex grenade? Oh yeah.

I liked armor values. They allowed you to represent weak areas on tanks, lightly armoured vehicles, etc. They also allowed for vehicles that were immune to certain weapons. You want to harm that LR? Bring an AT weapon.
Wether or not I feel they got some of those AVs correct is a different discussion.

a_typical_hero wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
If only we'd had a system which made vehicles functionally immune to small arms, but more vulnerable to high strength dedicated anti-armour attacks.
If only we'd had that system for multiple editions until vehicles were made to be ffectively infantry with more wounds.
If only!

ccs wrote:
I don't care how many bolters, or lasguns, etc you'd have to fire at a LR in order to do even 1 wound to it. Let alone actually bring it down.
I object to them being able to do even 1 wound to it period.

Out of interest, how did you like grenades being able to glance tanks to death in melee in previous editions? Or shooting small arms at a vehicle's rear?

Not sure about those guys, but for me:

Killing a tank by shooting small arms at the rear armour =

But killing a tank by shoving grenades into the treads/down the exhaust pipe/anywhere that looks vulnerable =

 Lord Damocles wrote:
If only we'd had a system which made vehicles functionally immune to small arms, but more vulnerable to high strength dedicated anti-armour attacks.
If only we'd had that system for multiple editions until vehicles were made to be ffectively infantry with more wounds.
If only!

Honestly asking here, can you explain the way it used to be? I only got in around 7th. And even then it was the last month of 7th. What made them impenetrable to small arms fire?

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
If only we'd had a system which made vehicles functionally immune to small arms, but more vulnerable to high strength dedicated anti-armour attacks.
If only we'd had that system for multiple editions until vehicles were made to be ffectively infantry with more wounds.
If only!

Honestly asking here, can you explain the way it used to be? I only got in around 7th. And even then it was the last month of 7th. What made them impenetrable to small arms fire?

3rd ed - 7th ed Vehicles had Armor Values ranging from 9-14
Front = x
Sides = y
Back = z

Your weapons had the strength values your familiar with today. Lascannon for ex, str.9
You shot at vehicle, you hit, you determined wich facing you were shooting at.
Then you rolled a dice & added that to the weapons str.

Your total is:
Lower than AV? No effect.
Equal? Roll on glancing hit table.
More than AV? Roll on damage table. You might blow it up, destroy a weapon, slow it down, etc....

Land Raiders had AV.14 all around. Bolt guns, being str 4 would never hurt it. Nor would HB, Plasma, ACs, etc. You want to hurt a LR? You had to shoot it with something str.8+

Most vehicles had higher front armor, medium sides, and lower rear #s. So sometimes you could get lucky.

Lighter vehicles had lower AV #s, so more things could hurt them.

Certain weapons had special rules concerning AV & some vehicles (like the Monolith) had special rules for their armour.

This worked quite well for alot of years.

Now? I could (in theory) peel wounds off a Titan with a las-pistol. wich is absurd.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
If only we'd had a system which made vehicles functionally immune to small arms, but more vulnerable to high strength dedicated anti-armour attacks.
If only we'd had that system for multiple editions until vehicles were made to be ffectively infantry with more wounds.
If only!

Honestly asking here, can you explain the way it used to be? I only got in around 7th. And even then it was the last month of 7th. What made them impenetrable to small arms fire?

Tanks didn't have wounds, they had a separate system of armour values, so for example a Rhino was Front armour 11, side 11 and rear 10; whilst a Land Raider was armour 14 all around. Weapons, after hitting had to roll a D6 and add their strength to see if they could do damage. If they equalled it, it was a glancing hit, if they beat it, it was a penetrating hit. Different editions had different versions of the tables you had to roll on to see what you did to the vehicle, like in 5th, where it was impossible to destroy a tank in 1 hit with just a glancing hit without bonuses, but you could plink it to death by removing all of its weapons and immobilising it, any further glancing or penetrating hit after this where they got a weapon destroyed or immobilised result would mean it is destroyed.

Now, you can see from this that certain weapons are utterly incapable of hurting tanks. A mighty Land Raider has nothing to fear from any weapon strength 7 or below*, whereas lighter vehicles like Rhinos can still be pot shotted by Heavy Bolters, but not reliably.

6th introduced hull points, which were kinda like wounds in addition to the above, but I didn't play those editions of 40k so I'm not able to go into depth on those.


*The 4th ed plague of Assault Cannons that demonstrated the exact problem we have now and Melta weapons etc. nonwithstanding.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
If only we'd had a system which made vehicles functionally immune to small arms, but more vulnerable to high strength dedicated anti-armour attacks.
If only we'd had that system for multiple editions until vehicles were made to be ffectively infantry with more wounds.
If only!

Honestly asking here, can you explain the way it used to be? I only got in around 7th. And even then it was the last month of 7th. What made them impenetrable to small arms fire?

depended on the tank, of course, but the roll against armor values was vs. Strength +d6. So take the example of a Demolisher tank vs a tactical squad:

Leman Russ Demolisher tank armor: 14 on the front, 13 on the side, 11 on the rear (as of end of 7th).
Boltgun strength: 4.
Here you can see that the most a boltgun can roll is a 10, which doesn't even match (glance) not to mention exceed (pen) the Demolisher's armor from any direction. Looking at the special weapons:
1) Melta: Meltaguns in half range got an extra d6 of penetration, and base strength was 8. From the Front, a Melta could match (glance) but not exceed (pen) a Demolisher at more than half range, and within half range had a 50-60% chance of getting a penetrating hit. Sides and rear were worse and much worse, respectively. This is why the Melta was the premier antitank weapon (but had a reputation for missing a lot being a single shot).

2) Plasma: Plasma Guns were the most common weapon taken, but in this case it is functionally useless. Without being able to get to the Demolisher's rear armor (which is difficult), the tank is either impervious to the Plasma Gun if it's facing the enemy, or mostly impervious from the side (Can only glance, which will not prevent the Demolisher from vaporizing the squad next turn). Strength 7, for reference.

3) Flamer: Flamers are anti-horde weapons that had a template. They were not effective against vehicles and the Demolisher is completely impervious from every direction (str 4).

Further differentiation existed:
- Armorbane was basically melta but did not require half-range. This was used for extremely heavy anti-tank weapons such as the Vanquisher cannon (ranged) or the Chainfist (melee).
- Ordnance was a ranged weapon type that gave 2d6&drop lowest for penetration. Unlike Armorbane, this did not give Ordnance weapons the ability to penetrate armor they couldn't already touch (e.g. a Str 8 Ordnance weapon could still only ever glance Armor 14 at best) but increased damage against targets which they could harm (str 8 Ordnance vs. a Rhino (AV11 on two facings) was much more reliable than base unbuffed Strength 8). Primary Weapon had the same anti-tank effect as ordnance, but without the drawbacks elsewhere in the rules (ordnance weapons were typically large and difficult to use so they had significant drawbacks).
- Tank Hunters was a unit-wide rule that meant that the unit could reroll any-or-all penetration rolls.
- Sunder was a weapon rule that meant that that weapon alone could reroll any-or-all penetration rolls - it represents a weapon better at penetrating armor than usual, but not as destructive as an Ordnance weapon. A weapon could conceivably exist which had both Ordnance and Sunder, representing a whole other class of weapons (though I don't remember a weapon like this existing)
- Certain weapons (Barrage weapons, bombs, and specialist top-attack weapons) hit side armor instead of the facing they were in, representing the abstraction of being a top-attack system that went after the thinner armor atop the vehicle.
- Haywire weapons used EMP or other esoteric effects to damage tanks without penetrating their armor, and outright ignored the penetration roll in favor of a different mechanism for resolving damage (typically a d6 with a 1 being harmless, 2-5 glancing, 6 penetrating, but it varied by edition and weapons could modify the chart).

Tanks were vulnerable to close assault by infantry because close assault always hit the rear armor facing. Certain tanks, however, like the Demolisher example above, were immune to even Space Marine-augmented punches, and required dedicated anti-tank weapons (e.g. krak grenades) to knock out even in close combat.

Such a mix of tools available gave the design team a lot of leeway when designing tanks and antitank weapons, though it took them a few editions to become brave enough to use the tools. For example, the Horus Heresy (the most advanced version of the 3rd-7th edition rule-set) allows all sorts of different interactions here. For example, a Armorbane Primary Weapon rolls 3d6 and drops the single lowest, offering the highest 2 dice as the penetration roll. This makes things with Primary Weapon and Armorbane (like the Macharius Vanquisher) terrifyingly effective (as it should be). Conversely, Tank Hunters stacks with weapons like meltaguns fairly well, but knowing the weakspots of enemy tanks does not help a Graviton gun (Haywire weapon) at all (which doesn't need to penetrate the armor). Certain defensive abilities (like Flare Shields) that only work on the front can be bypassed by Barrage which hits the top armor, but other defensive abilities (such as the Dispersion Fields used by Ordinatus engines) are all-around force fields that do protect the top.

So figuring out the anti-tank for your list is actually quite interesting depending on what weapon systems you chose to rely on. Unfortunately, 7th edition screwed the pooch and jumped the shark with Formations, so such nuance was often lost behind the utter veil of tears that were the army building mechanics.

Honestly asking here, can you explain the way it used to be? I only got in around 7th. And even then it was the last month of 7th. What made them impenetrable to small arms fire?

They are referring to a time when vehicles had facings and armor values. Each vehicle had a left, right, front, and rear facing, and each facing had its own armor value (or "AV"). Facings had other implications as well, but for the purposes of your question, what's important is that the front facing was typically the highest AV, the sides were generally slightly weaker, and the rear was always the lowest AV. When shooting vehicles, one needed to exceed the AV of the facing the were attacking in order to damage them. If you did, then you rolled on a damage chart. The chart would yield results such as "crew stunned", "weapon destroyed", or "Vehicle explodes". So you could, theoretically, "one shot" a tank (some weapons would give a small bonus to the chart roll), but most of the time what happened is that a vehicle became "stun locked". A stunned vehicle couldn't do anything until the following turn. So often what you had were vehicles that just sat in place for entire games. This was the "unfun" pary of the mechanic.

The fun part was the fact that, because of the AV, you actually needed to either bring anti-tank (because you could fire 1000 lasguns at a tank, but the were never, ever going to hurt it as the AV was nowhere near good enough), OR you brought something that at least had a chance to damage the rear armor. Maneuver mattered a lot more at the time because you were trying to get to the rear of the heavier things like Land Raiders, while your opponent was trying to deny you that shot. If you failed to bring at least some anti-tank, or your opponent killed your AT early, the tank/s they brought could run amock because they were essentially invincible to your army.


EDIT:

Ninja'd lol .

Not Online!!! wrote:

Karol wrote:
Without the melta rules armies like SoB would have to switch to playing some wierd melee swarm build.

My dudes don't have melta, but melta being one of the few weapons that actualy does damage to monsters and HQ, outside of melee is nice. Not everyone can be eldar where the basic troop weapon is always some sort of anti tank/anti meq gun. Without a good efficient anti tank weapon what we would see was swarms of vehicles being run, and while it may not matter to some, a tank or monster heavy meta is not fun for armies that can deal with them.

it's not eldar that have basic Fusion pistols on everything , it's harlequins...
Not the same faction

Crispy78 wrote:

???

Basic Eldar troop weapon is a shuriken catapult. I really wouldn't count it as anti-tank / anti-MEQ.

Its karol, in their mind, anything with pointy ears comes from Codex:Eldar and is litterally the most Overpowered gak that has ever existed and all Eldar players deserve to die.

Oh, and don't you dare suggest to them that they could add litterally any Imperium faction to their army.

a_typical_hero wrote:
Out of interest, how did you like grenades being able to glance tanks to death in melee in previous editions? Or shooting small arms at a vehicle's rear?

Grenades have historically been used as AT weapons in close assault, and nothing resembling an assault rifle was ever able to damage a tank (automatic high-caliber grenade rifle is another story, and even then it's glancing only), so both were fine by me.

I enjoy in Horus Heresy how tanks force a more tactical threat response. You generally cannot build a game plan around sitting in front of tanks and just blasting them to death, and if you do, you've likely got so many points tied up in vulnerable AT units that your whole strategy has to revolve around protecting them. Instead the game emphasizes flanking, aircraft, deep strike (with scatter, so it's unpredictable and unreliable) and fast models to gain access to vulnerable flanks and/or get meltabombs into melee. Tanks feel like they're nigh-invulnerable when handled well and extremely vulnerable when handled poorly, and that's exactly how it should be.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Karol wrote:
Without the melta rules armies like SoB would have to switch to playing some wierd melee swarm build.

My dudes don't have melta, but melta being one of the few weapons that actualy does damage to monsters and HQ, outside of melee is nice. Not everyone can be eldar where the basic troop weapon is always some sort of anti tank/anti meq gun. Without a good efficient anti tank weapon what we would see was swarms of vehicles being run, and while it may not matter to some, a tank or monster heavy meta is not fun for armies that can deal with them.

it's not eldar that have basic Fusion pistols on everything , it's harlequins...
Not the same faction

Crispy78 wrote:

???

Basic Eldar troop weapon is a shuriken catapult. I really wouldn't count it as anti-tank / anti-MEQ.

Its karol, in their mind, anything with pointy ears comes from Codex:Eldar and is litterally the most Overpowered gak that has ever existed and all Eldar players deserve to die.

Oh, and don't you dare suggest to them that they could add litterally any Imperium faction to their army.

Ah, Harlies. I'd forgotten about them and was about to rail about how DE's standard troop weapon barely counts as anti-anything, they're so worthless...

Do people pay the points for fusion pistols as standard on their Troupes? I've got a small detachment of Harlequins to ally in with my DE army but back when I built them it didn't seem worth it. I suppose if they're your army as opposed to just an allied unit then you need to get the anti-tank from somewhere...

Crispy78 wrote:

Ah, Harlies. I'd forgotten about them and was about to rail about how DE's standard troop weapon barely counts as anti-anything, they're so worthless...

Do people pay the points for fusion pistols as standard on their Troupes? I've got a small detachment of Harlequins to ally in with my DE army but back when I built them it didn't seem worth it. I suppose if they're your army as opposed to just an allied unit then you need to get the anti-tank from somewhere...

fusion pistols are dirt cheap and hit super hard, combined with the ridiculous mobility of quins, their short range doesnt really mean anything. As allies you'll usually just spam bikes tho, theyre by far the most "splashable" unit in the codex.

 catbarf wrote:

a_typical_hero wrote:
Out of interest, how did you like grenades being able to glance tanks to death in melee in previous editions? Or shooting small arms at a vehicle's rear?

Grenades have historically been used as AT weapons in close assault, and nothing resembling an assault rifle was ever able to damage a tank (automatic high-caliber grenade rifle is another story, and even then it's glancing only), so both were fine by me.

I enjoy in Horus Heresy how tanks force a more tactical threat response. You generally cannot build a game plan around sitting in front of tanks and just blasting them to death, and if you do, you've likely got so many points tied up in vulnerable AT units that your whole strategy has to revolve around protecting them. Instead the game emphasizes flanking, aircraft, deep strike (with scatter, so it's unpredictable and unreliable) and fast models to gain access to vulnerable flanks and/or get meltabombs into melee. Tanks feel like they're nigh-invulnerable when handled well and extremely vulnerable when handled poorly, and that's exactly how it should be.

It's also worth noting how effective tanks are in assault.

Not in "Assault" mind - they can't fight in close combat as you know (but I am telling the other posters). But if the enemy has a defensive line of troops or fortifications, and you have cheap and plentiful assault vehicles (like the Ordo Reductor's DIY assault tank design), you can actually break through the enemy line because of how tanks work. For example, the 30k game I played this weekend was against Salamanders, and some of my tanks ended up in his Deployment Zone (where they score, thanks to Ordo Reductor rules!) I lost two squadrons and two light (6hp) superheavies doing it, but the tanks were cheap and plentiful enough to trade those losses for speed and space, and were able to Tank Shock through the front line, giving 0 feths about small arms to their front armor, and plow into his deployment zone. Mobile infantry (thallax) followed up (after deepstriking forwards) and charged the infantry units, to keep them tied up and prevent them shooting the poor ORATs in the rear (where the armor was not immune to small arms). My Archmagos and his Retinue were riding in a Triaros, which was immune to small arms and very resistant to anti-tank weapons, and facilitated their own breakthrough elsewhere using the Triaros's ram.

In 8th/9th, if I just boop tanks into the enemy line, I'm only hurting myself (I can't tank-shock breaches for my deep strikers, for example).

 bullyboy wrote:

 addnid wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Just nerf the melta.

No need to change profiles or rules or anything.

This is a problem that was generated by a sudden spike in the performance of melta platforms. Nerf eradicator and MM and you are fine.

I agree with you but let’s not forget clown fusion pistols (maybe just limit the number of models who can take one).

Clown fusion pistols have the same rule they had throughout 8th. They are not an issue (yet)

They are if the harly player knows how to build a decent list and play the game well enough. Unless you are using a green tide sort of list, of course.

Fusion pistols on infantry that moves so fast can hit your tanky stuff so hard it will change your mind on this. They do make clowns more expensive per wound though, and I know some comp clown lists don't use them that much, as clowns can also mortal wound vehicules to death pretty EZ.

ccs wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
If only we'd had a system which made vehicles functionally immune to small arms, but more vulnerable to high strength dedicated anti-armour attacks.
If only we'd had that system for multiple editions until vehicles were made to be ffectively infantry with more wounds.
If only!

Honestly asking here, can you explain the way it used to be? I only got in around 7th. And even then it was the last month of 7th. What made them impenetrable to small arms fire?

3rd ed - 7th ed Vehicles had Armor Values ranging from 9-14
Front = x
Sides = y
Back = z

Your weapons had the strength values your familiar with today. Lascannon for ex, str.9
You shot at vehicle, you hit, you determined wich facing you were shooting at.
Then you rolled a dice & added that to the weapons str.

Your total is:
Lower than AV? No effect.
Equal? Roll on glancing hit table.
More than AV? Roll on damage table. You might blow it up, destroy a weapon, slow it down, etc....

Land Raiders had AV.14 all around. Bolt guns, being str 4 would never hurt it. Nor would HB, Plasma, ACs, etc. You want to hurt a LR? You had to shoot it with something str.8+

Most vehicles had higher front armor, medium sides, and lower rear #s. So sometimes you could get lucky.

Lighter vehicles had lower AV #s, so more things could hurt them.

Certain weapons had special rules concerning AV & some vehicles (like the Monolith) had special rules for their armour.

This worked quite well for alot of years.

Now? I could (in theory) peel wounds off a Titan with a las-pistol. wich is absurd.

I guess my question now is 8th did away with "Facing" right? All vehicles were perpetually always facing in the exact way needed to fire all it's weapons on any target in range. So how do we bring back AV without destroying the perpetual "Facing" problem?

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I guess my question now is 8th did away with "Facing" right? All vehicles were perpetually always facing in the exact way needed to fire all it's weapons on any target in range. So how do we bring back AV without destroying the perpetual "Facing" problem?

Why is facing a perpetual problem?

Talk about Vehicule Facings belong in another thread please (one about past times and nostalgia)

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I guess my question now is 8th did away with "Facing" right? All vehicles were perpetually always facing in the exact way needed to fire all it's weapons on any target in range. So how do we bring back AV without destroying the perpetual "Facing" problem?

Why is facing a perpetual problem?

If the LR is perpetually facing all 360 degrees at all times, how does the opponent determine the rear or the sides? Because I can drive my landraider up to the side of a ruin, right side perfectly flush with the side of the ruin, and still fire it's right side sponsons on the Chaos Predator to the left or behind me. So according to the rules, there is no such a thing as facing anymore, unless I am greatly mistaken, which leads to if facing does not exist, there is no rear or sides, or front.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I guess my question now is 8th did away with "Facing" right? All vehicles were perpetually always facing in the exact way needed to fire all it's weapons on any target in range. So how do we bring back AV without destroying the perpetual "Facing" problem?

Why is facing a perpetual problem?

If the LR is perpetually facing all 360 degrees at all times, how does the opponent determine the rear or the sides? Because I can drive my landraider up to the side of a ruin, right side perfectly flush with the side of the ruin, and still fire it's right side sponsons on the Chaos Predator to the left or behind me. So according to the rules, there is no such a thing as facing anymore, unless I am greatly mistaken, which leads to if facing does not exist, there is no rear or sides, or front.

Oh, yes, well, they'd have to define facing, but I've already got a homebrew way to do that which is much better than the old way. And you'd use the position of the model on the table, just like you do when capturing objectives or flying aircraft (which still do have facing, otherwise moving forwards in a straight line would have no meaning because there's no forwards).

Or we could just make all sides the same AV? All Rhinos and Rhino-like are 11, LR are 14, Baneblades are 15, and Knights are 15? Titans would need to be something like 20? Then you would need a 4+ still just to wound one with a Volcano Cannon, which seems right. In the book it took 3 of them shooting at a warlord just to even damage it, and it wasn't until it was damaged by a different titan that they fired a kill shot into it's face at almost point blank.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Or we could just make all sides the same AV? All Rhinos and Rhino-like are 11, LR are 14, Baneblades are 15, and Knights are 15? Titans would need to be something like 20? Then you would need a 4+ still just to wound one with a Volcano Cannon, which seems right. In the book it took 3 of them shooting at a warlord just to even damage it, and it wasn't until it was damaged by a different titan that they fired a kill shot into it's face at almost point blank.

I mean you could, I guess, have the same facing all around. Some tanks did indeed have that in earlier editions (e.g. the vaunted Land Raider). But I'd prefer a system with slightly greater verisimilitude, which would be trivial to implement.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Or we could just make all sides the same AV? All Rhinos and Rhino-like are 11, LR are 14, Baneblades are 15, and Knights are 15? Titans would need to be something like 20? Then you would need a 4+ still just to wound one with a Volcano Cannon, which seems right. In the book it took 3 of them shooting at a warlord just to even damage it, and it wasn't until it was damaged by a different titan that they fired a kill shot into it's face at almost point blank.

I mean you could, I guess, have the same facing all around. Some tanks did indeed have that in earlier editions (e.g. the vaunted Land Raider). But I'd prefer a system with slightly greater verisimilitude, which would be trivial to implement.

I don't think truth and reality can be achieved in a game where there are literal demons made of rape dreams and anger, and Sly Marbo hunt HR Geiger inspired fevered nightmares made manifest, for sport. I mean, the tanks we are talking about have emotions for Mork's sake. Baneblades can feel angry, and LRs feel loss. There is no "real or true" in 40k.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Or we could just make all sides the same AV? All Rhinos and Rhino-like are 11, LR are 14, Baneblades are 15, and Knights are 15? Titans would need to be something like 20? Then you would need a 4+ still just to wound one with a Volcano Cannon, which seems right. In the book it took 3 of them shooting at a warlord just to even damage it, and it wasn't until it was damaged by a different titan that they fired a kill shot into it's face at almost point blank.

I mean you could, I guess, have the same facing all around. Some tanks did indeed have that in earlier editions (e.g. the vaunted Land Raider). But I'd prefer a system with slightly greater verisimilitude, which would be trivial to implement.

I don't think truth and reality can be achieved in a game where there are literal demons made of rape dreams and anger, and Sly Marbo hunt HR Geiger inspired fevered nightmares made manifest, for sport. I mean, the tanks we are talking about have emotions for Mork's sake. Baneblades can feel angry, and LRs feel loss. There is no "real or true" in 40k.

I don't want to rehash this argument for the umteenth time, but I am not talking about the reality as we see it (it doesn't exist in our universe, as rightly pointed out) but the reality of the universe which the game is trying to reflect.

In-universe, there are said daemons, aliens, and emotional tanks.

In-universe, there are also tanks that have thinner armor in certain places and thicker armor in others.

The first does not refute the second - or really have any bearing on it at all.

If we can take the first into account through the rules (daemons army, sly marbo, tyranid army, machine spirit special rule), then surely the second shouldn't be much more difficult.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Or we could just make all sides the same AV? All Rhinos and Rhino-like are 11, LR are 14, Baneblades are 15, and Knights are 15? Titans would need to be something like 20? Then you would need a 4+ still just to wound one with a Volcano Cannon, which seems right. In the book it took 3 of them shooting at a warlord just to even damage it, and it wasn't until it was damaged by a different titan that they fired a kill shot into it's face at almost point blank.

I mean you could, I guess, have the same facing all around. Some tanks did indeed have that in earlier editions (e.g. the vaunted Land Raider). But I'd prefer a system with slightly greater verisimilitude, which would be trivial to implement.

I don't think truth and reality can be achieved in a game where there are literal demons made of rape dreams and anger, and Sly Marbo hunt HR Geiger inspired fevered nightmares made manifest, for sport. I mean, the tanks we are talking about have emotions for Mork's sake. Baneblades can feel angry, and LRs feel loss. There is no "real or true" in 40k.

I don't want to rehash this argument for the umteenth time, but I am not talking about the reality as we see it (it doesn't exist in our universe, as rightly pointed out) but the reality of the universe which the game is trying to reflect.

In-universe, there are said daemons, aliens, and emotional tanks.

In-universe, there are also tanks that have thinner armor in certain places and thicker armor in others.

The first does not refute the second - or really have any bearing on it at all.

I concede.

That being said, the rules department is so terrible as it is, you think they are up to creating a math intensive set of stuff like AVs in 9th? How would you AV a Heavy Executioner (? the one that's essentially a flying LR) I mean, you make that a LR like 14 all over, you are in effect killing the entire meta. Vehicles would instantly become the new Meta.

Shockingly, rewriting a core rule component of the game might require rewriting parts of the game that interact with that core component.

(AV isn't "maths intensive". It's literally easier than the toughness/to-wound chart because multiplication or division isn't required).

Lots of nostalgia for AV's. Kinda ignores some things that I remember quite clearly from those days:

Arguing over what facing you hit, because at 45 and 135 degrees, it's really a crap shoot. Keep in mind, that the arcs that determined AV ALSO determined which weapons could fire, so you had to argue about facing both when shooting and when being attacked.

Your Land Raider had to pay for 2 twin-linked Lascannons, even though more often than not, you'd only get to shoot with one because of firing arcs.

Monsters had no facings, and no AVs, so they were better against AT than vehicles.

And my own personal least favourite thing about the old system? One penetrating hit could destroy the vehicle. That's right, ONE.

Imagine 5 lascannon shots vs a titan maniple with av's. My five dudes shoot; all 2k points of your army are gone. What do we do in turn 2?

Even if a vehicle wasn't destroyed outright by a penetrating hit, they could be absolutely crippled- you could become immobile for a turn or the full game or have a weapon permanently destroyed, and again, a single penetrating hit could do that.

These are the things I remember about the AV system.