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.

 jeff white wrote:

All the arguments about lasguns hurting Titans/superheavies conveniently leave out the number of shots required to do even one wound to something with dozens of wounds on its profile. There's a certain amount of abstraction in any system but I really don't think requiring hundreds of small arms shots to kill a tank is a bad price to pay to ditch the old facing system that caused endless arguments.

I got a clue for you, it wasn’t the facing system that caused those arguments...

With so much of GW's rule development, they end up throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Vehicle facing is a solid idea and it added depth and decisions to the game. But it was also imprecisely written and worded. It could easily be fixed - but instead of fixing it they just threw the whole notion out the window.

I really don't think they got rid of vehicle facing because Timmy and Kevin couldn't figure out the side arc of a falcon grav tank, or any other 'imprecision.'

Vehicles are probably the subsystem of 40k that's changed the most over the years (other than maybe psychic powers), and they went in another new direction with it. Its hardly unprecedented.

 Mezmorki wrote:

 jeff white wrote:

All the arguments about lasguns hurting Titans/superheavies conveniently leave out the number of shots required to do even one wound to something with dozens of wounds on its profile. There's a certain amount of abstraction in any system but I really don't think requiring hundreds of small arms shots to kill a tank is a bad price to pay to ditch the old facing system that caused endless arguments.

I got a clue for you, it wasn’t the facing system that caused those arguments...

With so much of GW's rule development, they end up throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Vehicle facing is a solid idea and it added depth and decisions to the game. But it was also imprecisely written and worded. It could easily be fixed - but instead of fixing it they just threw the whole notion out the window.

Totally.

I liked the old Epic system where facing just gave a modifier to save, iirc. And it could be easily integrated with the new paradigm. Just do something like -1 Toughness from the side arc, and -2 Toughness from the rear arc. Pump the default toughness of vehicles up by +1 (so a Land Raider is T9), Then change the damn wound table back to what it used to be. That's my 30 second starting bid.

Lasguns couldnt hurt stuff like stormsurges either as far i remember. They could hurt anything with toughness 7 or higher. If you ask me T6 or higher should be immune to lasguns.
When i played 8th edition i saw knights and tanks being killed by flamers and bolters. That was a big immersion killer.

terror51247 wrote:
Lasguns couldnt hurt stuff like stormsurges either as far i remember. They could hurt anything with toughness 7 or higher. If you ask me T6 or higher should be immune to lasguns.
When i played 8th edition i saw knights and tanks being killed by flamers and bolters. That was a big immersion killer.

Yes, because losing a couple of wounds here and there to small arms is much more immersion breaking than the weapons everyone was bringing besides actual anti-tank weapons to glance vehicles to death instead for efficiency.

Have you even done the math for a Bolter hurting a Knight? 100 Bolt Rifle shots barely inflicts 5 wounds! Your anecdotal garbage doesn't negate this exact fact.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

terror51247 wrote:
Lasguns couldnt hurt stuff like stormsurges either as far i remember. They could hurt anything with toughness 7 or higher. If you ask me T6 or higher should be immune to lasguns.
When i played 8th edition i saw knights and tanks being killed by flamers and bolters. That was a big immersion killer.

Yes, because losing a couple of wounds here and there to small arms is much more immersion breaking . . . .

It's not the vehicle taking wounds, it's the decision making of the troops who are spraying their small arms at heavy vehicles that's immersion breaking. It shouldn't be a thing.

Might help this thread if people arguing about immunity to small arms fire would identify whether or not they ever served in the military.

I have a feeling the disconnect owes to whether or not someone has seen what an automatic weapon does to armor IRL. Which is absolutely nothing.

 techsoldaten wrote:
Might help this thread if people arguing about immunity to small arms fire would identify whether or not they ever served in the military.

I have a feeling the disconnect owes to whether or not someone has seen what an automatic weapon does to armor IRL. Which is absolutely nothing.

+1

Not that I've served, mind you, but I've done some research and I prefer data over Rambo movies.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

terror51247 wrote:
Lasguns couldnt hurt stuff like stormsurges either as far i remember. They could hurt anything with toughness 7 or higher. If you ask me T6 or higher should be immune to lasguns.
When i played 8th edition i saw knights and tanks being killed by flamers and bolters. That was a big immersion killer.

Yes, because losing a couple of wounds here and there to small arms is much more immersion breaking . . . .

It's not the vehicle taking wounds, it's the decision making of the troops who are spraying their small arms at heavy vehicles that's immersion breaking. It shouldn't be a thing.

Are you saying that nobody in real life fires small arms at weapons despite have a nearly 0% chance of doing anything relevant? I'm asking because this seems to happen in every movie involving tanks I've ever seen.

 techsoldaten wrote:
Might help this thread if people arguing about immunity to small arms fire would identify whether or not they ever served in the military.

I have a feeling the disconnect owes to whether or not someone has seen what an automatic weapon does to armor IRL. Which is absolutely nothing.

I find it entirely believable that small ballistic weaponry wouldn't do a damn thing. I haven't been in the military but I have handled guns, and we had a metal spinner target that was essentially an inch-or-so thick cast iron plate that could just take a seemingly infinite number of hits from anything less heavily propelled than... I think it was .308 bolt-action rifle rounds that finally gouged the crap out of it? I may have that wrong, but presumably 40K armor could very easily be made that would just treat any such small arm with the same degree of total blasé.

But what about small energy weapons, even, say, the lasgun? Would massed fire heat a Russ' armor enough to melt it or bake the crew or make ammo explode or something in the timescale of game of 40K? Does the energy get absorbed, or does the armor have little mirrors baked into it or something?

 alextroy wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

terror51247 wrote:
Lasguns couldnt hurt stuff like stormsurges either as far i remember. They could hurt anything with toughness 7 or higher. If you ask me T6 or higher should be immune to lasguns.
When i played 8th edition i saw knights and tanks being killed by flamers and bolters. That was a big immersion killer.

Yes, because losing a couple of wounds here and there to small arms is much more immersion breaking . . . .

It's not the vehicle taking wounds, it's the decision making of the troops who are spraying their small arms at heavy vehicles that's immersion breaking. It shouldn't be a thing.

Are you saying that nobody in real life fires small arms at weapons despite have a nearly 0% chance of doing anything relevant? I'm asking because this seems to happen in every movie involving tanks I've ever seen.

Methinks that's your problem.

Also, what I've seen in the more "realistic" depictions in movies is that troops will overwatch vehicles waiting for guys to pop out of them . . . AFTER hitting them with same actual AT capable weapon.

techsoldaten wrote:I have a feeling the disconnect owes to whether or not someone has seen what an automatic weapon does to armor IRL. Which is absolutely nothing.

While I haven't served, it really depends on the automatic weapon and the armor in question. An M-16 will likely do little more than mess up the paint with lead scoring in most cases, but an M-2 is an entirely different story. However, that latter is more like a Multilaser than a lasgun

If your armor is a Trukk.... I think that the impacts alone would shake it apart.

Of course, there is one caveat. Armor is designed around expected encounters. Plate armor is pretty decent against a sword, but I wouldn't trust it to hold back a round of a model 1911, for example. In some sci-fi environs, the armor is directed against more solid energy-based attacks rather than kinetic, so kinetic attacks work well. Food for thought at any rate.

CEO Kasen wrote:But what about small energy weapons, even, say, the lasgun? Would massed fire heat a Russ' armor enough to melt it or bake the crew or make ammo explode or something in the timescale of game of 40K? Does the energy get absorbed, or does the armor have little mirrors baked into it or something?

Well, considering that a lasgun hits about as hard and likely to cause damage sufficient to cause a wound like the average assault rifle today, maybe, but I doubt it. However, part of the concept I suggest considering that you not hit the armor, which is very hard with some things.

alextroy wrote:Are you saying that nobody in real life fires small arms at weapons despite have a nearly 0% chance of doing anything relevant? I'm asking because this seems to happen in every movie involving tanks I've ever seen.

I could think of 2 scenarios where someone would do this: 1) They are panicking and can't think of something intelligent to do other than get away; or 2) They trying to draw attention away from the real threat of the nice, conveniently portable AT weapon being deployed against it.

And Hollywood often makes very stupid decisions when it comes to guiding combat.

Also tanks are mostly fairly blind. Unless the tank commander peeks out the cupola. I don't think his face would be bullet proof.

 jeff white wrote:

Karol wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
No it's not, you're wrong.

See how that works when you aren't providing any arguments?

Does he need to? Is it required to write a 2 paragraph disertation that eating glass is not good idea. A lascgun should never be able to hurt a vehicle like a knight, Land raider or a titan.

Eating glass... lol.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

the_scotsman wrote:

Karol wrote:
No, there are things you do not have to prove. You don't need to make arguments why breathing is okey for you.

And lasguns should not be able to hurt tanks or termintors lore wise.

heheheheehehehehehehe I see what you did there lol.

"Lasguns should not be able to hurt tanks....also incidentally my ENTIRE fething ARMY should just happen to be immune to the baseline guns and melee of multiple factions im making such a good common sense argument look at me."

How many M16s does it take to kill an M1 Abrams tank? More than 50? More than 50 for how long? I got common sense all day long... I bet it takes your rifles longer than that.

This is a game about putting your little plastic models down on a tabletop and playing a game with someone else's little plastic models. "The Lore" is bs, made up to sell little plastic models.

I'm going to explain this real slow because apparently it's a toughie

If you make a game

and the basic unit of one particular army

has NO WAY AT ALL to interact with the basic unit of another army

you've probably made yourself a bad game.

if you say "well you see, in the lore, rooks bishops and queens can clearly move at top speeds 16x of a lowly pawn, I'm sorry but it's simply immersion breaking to me that it would ever be humanly possible for one of those idiotic slow pawns to ever have a CHANCE to land a blow against an opponent that lightning-fast" then you don't need to change the game so pawns can't hurt queens, you need to change the game to explain how pawns can hurt queens.

To make a point regarding the effect of small arms on tanks, it depends on several factors, the armor of the tank in question, what the intent is. Tanks often have hatches open and crew looking around, the tank commander in particular so they have better situational awareness. Yes no amount of .556 fire will penetrate the armor of even a T-55 tank which is a rather weak tank on modern battlefields. Yet fire can and will strip off outer equipment from the tank. If a bullet impacts one of our periscopes and disables it, then yes the tank was "hurt" by a weapon completely incapable of penetrating its armor, though it will continue to function.

Now in the event the armor suffers major damage, such as the damage a Melta weapon would inflict, then yes the big gapping hole in the armor could be targeted by small arms and in all likelihood the crew would be slaughtered in the cramped confines of the tank, with bullets ricocheting inside the tank and turning them into slurry. This of course assumes the intervention of a true AT gun.

Its also why I think the true AT guns of 40k should be very much capable of 1 shoting tanks. Should one of my battlewagons get targeted by a Leman Russ Vanquisher or a Tau Railgun, I should suffer a catastrophic ammunition detonation or something to that effect from those weapons. Thats the trade off of anti infantry weapons being completely useless, if that is what you're going for, then AT guns should be absolutely devastating, as opposed to spamming plasma guns which i commonly see used over most AT weaponry.

the_scotsman wrote:

 jeff white wrote:

Karol wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
No it's not, you're wrong.

See how that works when you aren't providing any arguments?

Does he need to? Is it required to write a 2 paragraph disertation that eating glass is not good idea. A lascgun should never be able to hurt a vehicle like a knight, Land raider or a titan.

Eating glass... lol.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

the_scotsman wrote:

Karol wrote:
No, there are things you do not have to prove. You don't need to make arguments why breathing is okey for you.

And lasguns should not be able to hurt tanks or termintors lore wise.

heheheheehehehehehehe I see what you did there lol.

"Lasguns should not be able to hurt tanks....also incidentally my ENTIRE fething ARMY should just happen to be immune to the baseline guns and melee of multiple factions im making such a good common sense argument look at me."

How many M16s does it take to kill an M1 Abrams tank? More than 50? More than 50 for how long? I got common sense all day long... I bet it takes your rifles longer than that.

This is a game about putting your little plastic models down on a tabletop and playing a game with someone else's little plastic models. "The Lore" is bs, made up to sell little plastic models.

I'm going to explain this real slow because apparently it's a toughie

If you make a game

and the basic unit of one particular army

has NO WAY AT ALL to interact with the basic unit of another army

you've probably made yourself a bad game.

The only time that's been the case is with Knights, as the basic unit of every other army is just some infantry model and perfectly shootable with basic weapons.

In which case that's not a bad game, as the problem only exists because of one faction out of 20.

I'd just call that a poor implementation of Knights. . . Which it was.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

panzerfront14 wrote:
To make a point regarding the effect of small arms on tanks, it depends on several factors, the armor of the tank in question, what the intent is. Tanks often have hatches open and crew looking around, the tank commander in particular so they have better situational awareness. Yes no amount of .556 fire will penetrate the armor of even a T-55 tank which is a rather weak tank on modern battlefields. Yet fire can and will strip off outer equipment from the tank. If a bullet impacts one of our periscopes and disables it, then yes the tank was "hurt" by a weapon completely incapable of penetrating its armor, though it will continue to function.

Now in the event the armor suffers major damage, such as the damage a Melta weapon would inflict, then yes the big gapping hole in the armor could be targeted by small arms and in all likelihood the crew would be slaughtered in the cramped confines of the tank, with bullets ricocheting inside the tank and turning them into slurry. This of course assumes the intervention of a true AT gun.

Its also why I think the true AT guns of 40k should be very much capable of 1 shoting tanks. Should one of my battlewagons get targeted by a Leman Russ Vanquisher or a Tau Railgun, I should suffer a catastrophic ammunition detonation or something to that effect from those weapons. Thats the trade off of anti infantry weapons being completely useless, if that is what you're going for, then AT guns should be absolutely devastating, as opposed to spamming plasma guns which i commonly see used over most AT weaponry.

You basically just described 1st through 4th edition, where dedicated AT weapons would regularly one-shot or cripple vehicles with a solid penetrating hit.

Tygre wrote:Also tanks are mostly fairly blind. Unless the tank commander peeks out the cupola. I don't think his face would be bullet proof.

But... How else is the Commander so supposed to hit people with his sword if doesn't peek out of the copula?

the_scotsman wrote:This is a game about putting your little plastic models down on a tabletop and playing a game with someone else's little plastic models. "The Lore" is bs, made up to sell little plastic models.

I'm going to explain this real slow because apparently it's a toughie

If you make a game

and the basic unit of one particular army

has NO WAY AT ALL to interact with the basic unit of another army

you've probably made yourself a bad game.

if you say "well you see, in the lore, rooks bishops and queens can clearly move at top speeds 16x of a lowly pawn, I'm sorry but it's simply immersion breaking to me that it would ever be humanly possible for one of those idiotic slow pawns to ever have a CHANCE to land a blow against an opponent that lightning-fast" then you don't need to change the game so pawns can't hurt queens, you need to change the game to explain how pawns can hurt queens.

Okay, but what Troop unit (basic unit of an army in 40K) cannot be hurt by Lasguns?

And why are we concerned with this when we've been talking about how well a Lasgun can harm a Heavy Support Vehicle or Lord of War?

Or were you referring to Imperial Knights as an army and using their Knights as the "basic unit"?

Or were you referring to ANY non-unique unit in the other army?

If the last, I have to disagree. There is no reason for a Troop unit to have the ability to counter every single unit in a game, even if poorly, so long as an army as a whole has other answers for it. Fortunately for most Lasgun-carrying units, there is usually an option for a Lascannon, Rokkit Launcha, or similar.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

panzerfront14 wrote:
To make a point regarding the effect of small arms on tanks, it depends on several factors, the armor of the tank in question, what the intent is. Tanks often have hatches open and crew looking around, the tank commander in particular so they have better situational awareness. Yes no amount of .556 fire will penetrate the armor of even a T-55 tank which is a rather weak tank on modern battlefields. Yet fire can and will strip off outer equipment from the tank. If a bullet impacts one of our periscopes and disables it, then yes the tank was "hurt" by a weapon completely incapable of penetrating its armor, though it will continue to function.

Now in the event the armor suffers major damage, such as the damage a Melta weapon would inflict, then yes the big gapping hole in the armor could be targeted by small arms and in all likelihood the crew would be slaughtered in the cramped confines of the tank, with bullets ricocheting inside the tank and turning them into slurry. This of course assumes the intervention of a true AT gun.

Its also why I think the true AT guns of 40k should be very much capable of 1 shoting tanks. Should one of my battlewagons get targeted by a Leman Russ Vanquisher or a Tau Railgun, I should suffer a catastrophic ammunition detonation or something to that effect from those weapons. Thats the trade off of anti infantry weapons being completely useless, if that is what you're going for, then AT guns should be absolutely devastating, as opposed to spamming plasma guns which i commonly see used over most AT weaponry.

You basically just described 1st through 4th edition, where dedicated AT weapons would regularly one-shot or cripple vehicles with a solid penetrating hit.

You mean the same editions where a Lascannon couldn't kill a Carnifex in one hit? You're really just picking and choosing what's immersion breaking.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 techsoldaten wrote:
Might help this thread if people arguing about immunity to small arms fire would identify whether or not they ever served in the military.

I have a feeling the disconnect owes to whether or not someone has seen what an automatic weapon does to armor IRL. Which is absolutely nothing.

Didn't realize you used Lasguns and Bolters in the military and shot a bunch of them at a tank.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

terror51247 wrote:
Lasguns couldnt hurt stuff like stormsurges either as far i remember. They could hurt anything with toughness 7 or higher. If you ask me T6 or higher should be immune to lasguns.
When i played 8th edition i saw knights and tanks being killed by flamers and bolters. That was a big immersion killer.

Yes, because losing a couple of wounds here and there to small arms is much more immersion breaking . . . .

It's not the vehicle taking wounds, it's the decision making of the troops who are spraying their small arms at heavy vehicles that's immersion breaking. It shouldn't be a thing.

If there aren't infantry near the tank they're not just gonna sit there idly. If there are infantry near said tank, said anti infantry weapons are pointed at that instead of the tank. Quit picking and choosing what's immersion breaking. Either the game is immersive or it isn't.

If anything, there's more active decision making in terms of trying to plink off one more wound off a tank, which is a good thing in a game that doesn't have a lot of depth to begin with.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Spoiler:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

panzerfront14 wrote:
To make a point regarding the effect of small arms on tanks, it depends on several factors, the armor of the tank in question, what the intent is. Tanks often have hatches open and crew looking around, the tank commander in particular so they have better situational awareness. Yes no amount of .556 fire will penetrate the armor of even a T-55 tank which is a rather weak tank on modern battlefields. Yet fire can and will strip off outer equipment from the tank. If a bullet impacts one of our periscopes and disables it, then yes the tank was "hurt" by a weapon completely incapable of penetrating its armor, though it will continue to function.

Now in the event the armor suffers major damage, such as the damage a Melta weapon would inflict, then yes the big gapping hole in the armor could be targeted by small arms and in all likelihood the crew would be slaughtered in the cramped confines of the tank, with bullets ricocheting inside the tank and turning them into slurry. This of course assumes the intervention of a true AT gun.

Its also why I think the true AT guns of 40k should be very much capable of 1 shoting tanks. Should one of my battlewagons get targeted by a Leman Russ Vanquisher or a Tau Railgun, I should suffer a catastrophic ammunition detonation or something to that effect from those weapons. Thats the trade off of anti infantry weapons being completely useless, if that is what you're going for, then AT guns should be absolutely devastating, as opposed to spamming plasma guns which i commonly see used over most AT weaponry.

You basically just described 1st through 4th edition, where dedicated AT weapons would regularly one-shot or cripple vehicles with a solid penetrating hit.

You mean the same editions where a Lascannon couldn't kill a Carnifex in one hit? You're really just picking and choosing what's immersion breaking.

The AV mechanic is the one that I'm focussing on atm. Here's my go-to response for your type of statement now: Reinstating certain aspects of former editions does not necessitate the reinstatement of ALL aspects of former editions.

Five min in the penalty box for you.

Also, there was a tradeoff for MCs in that era, where it was more likely for them to take damage from a Lascannon, but it would require multiple hits. And being only T6, the Fex was engageable by a far greater array of weapons than something that was AV 12+.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

If there aren't infantry near the tank they're not just gonna sit there idly. If there are infantry near said tank, said anti infantry weapons are pointed at that instead of the tank. Quit picking and choosing what's immersion breaking. Either the game is immersive or it isn't.

Really Slayer? Are tgey going to empty clips of ammunition into the armor plates in the hopes of achieving something? Is that your stand on the matter?

 alextroy wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

terror51247 wrote:
Lasguns couldnt hurt stuff like stormsurges either as far i remember. They could hurt anything with toughness 7 or higher. If you ask me T6 or higher should be immune to lasguns.
When i played 8th edition i saw knights and tanks being killed by flamers and bolters. That was a big immersion killer.

Yes, because losing a couple of wounds here and there to small arms is much more immersion breaking . . . .

It's not the vehicle taking wounds, it's the decision making of the troops who are spraying their small arms at heavy vehicles that's immersion breaking. It shouldn't be a thing.

Are you saying that nobody in real life fires small arms at weapons despite have a nearly 0% chance of doing anything relevant? I'm asking because this seems to happen in every movie involving tanks I've ever seen.

The end of Saving Private Ryan makes the point quite clearly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

the_scotsman wrote:

 jeff white wrote:

Spoiler:

Karol wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
No it's not, you're wrong.

See how that works when you aren't providing any arguments?

Does he need to? Is it required to write a 2 paragraph disertation that eating glass is not good idea. A lascgun should never be able to hurt a vehicle like a knight, Land raider or a titan.

Eating glass... lol.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

the_scotsman wrote:

Karol wrote:
No, there are things you do not have to prove. You don't need to make arguments why breathing is okey for you.

And lasguns should not be able to hurt tanks or termintors lore wise.

heheheheehehehehehehe I see what you did there lol.

"Lasguns should not be able to hurt tanks....also incidentally my ENTIRE fething ARMY should just happen to be immune to the baseline guns and melee of multiple factions im making such a good common sense argument look at me."

How many M16s does it take to kill an M1 Abrams tank? More than 50? More than 50 for how long? I got common sense all day long... I bet it takes your rifles longer than that.

This is a game about putting your little plastic models down on a tabletop and playing a game with someone else's little plastic models. "The Lore" is bs, made up to sell little plastic models.

I'm going to explain this real slow because apparently it's a toughie

If you make a game

and the basic unit of one particular army

has NO WAY AT ALL to interact with the basic unit of another army

you've probably made yourself a bad game.

if you say "well you see, in the lore, rooks bishops and queens can clearly move at top speeds 16x of a lowly pawn, I'm sorry but it's simply immersion breaking to me that it would ever be humanly possible for one of those idiotic slow pawns to ever have a CHANCE to land a blow against an opponent that lightning-fast" then you don't need to change the game so pawns can't hurt queens, you need to change the game to explain how pawns can hurt queens.

What are you on about here, Scotsman? This is supposed to be an infantry based war game. If you took pistols to fight mechanised infantry, then you forgot about the mech part. Not a bad game. Maybe a bad game player. Very much a bad point.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Spoiler:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

panzerfront14 wrote:
To make a point regarding the effect of small arms on tanks, it depends on several factors, the armor of the tank in question, what the intent is. Tanks often have hatches open and crew looking around, the tank commander in particular so they have better situational awareness. Yes no amount of .556 fire will penetrate the armor of even a T-55 tank which is a rather weak tank on modern battlefields. Yet fire can and will strip off outer equipment from the tank. If a bullet impacts one of our periscopes and disables it, then yes the tank was "hurt" by a weapon completely incapable of penetrating its armor, though it will continue to function.

Now in the event the armor suffers major damage, such as the damage a Melta weapon would inflict, then yes the big gapping hole in the armor could be targeted by small arms and in all likelihood the crew would be slaughtered in the cramped confines of the tank, with bullets ricocheting inside the tank and turning them into slurry. This of course assumes the intervention of a true AT gun.

Its also why I think the true AT guns of 40k should be very much capable of 1 shoting tanks. Should one of my battlewagons get targeted by a Leman Russ Vanquisher or a Tau Railgun, I should suffer a catastrophic ammunition detonation or something to that effect from those weapons. Thats the trade off of anti infantry weapons being completely useless, if that is what you're going for, then AT guns should be absolutely devastating, as opposed to spamming plasma guns which i commonly see used over most AT weaponry.

You basically just described 1st through 4th edition, where dedicated AT weapons would regularly one-shot or cripple vehicles with a solid penetrating hit.

You mean the same editions where a Lascannon couldn't kill a Carnifex in one hit? You're really just picking and choosing what's immersion breaking.

The AV mechanic is the one that I'm focussing on atm. Here's my go-to response for your type of statement now: Reinstating certain aspects of former editions does not necessitate the reinstatement of ALL aspects of former editions.

Five min in the penalty box for you.

Also, there was a tradeoff for MCs in that era, where it was more likely for them to take damage from a Lascannon, but it would require multiple hits. And being only T6, the Fex was engageable by a far greater array of weapons than something that was AV 12+.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

If there aren't infantry near the tank they're not just gonna sit there idly. If there are infantry near said tank, said anti infantry weapons are pointed at that instead of the tank. Quit picking and choosing what's immersion breaking. Either the game is immersive or it isn't.

Really Slayer? Are tgey going to empty clips of ammunition into the armor plates in the hopes of achieving something? Is that your stand on the matter?

1. Said weapons were still unlikely to wound a Carnifex. Greater array only applies if said greater array has a chance to do anything. Quite frankly, that's already comparable to vehicles now. So good for you for making my point more valid.
Also I LOL at you trying to say there were trade offs for Monstrous Creatures not being vehicles. Seriously it's like you didn't play the game at all 3rd through 7th. Monstrous Creatures were always better.
2. If a Rocket Launcher blew off part of a vehicle why wouldn't you try to take pot shots at the innards if there's no infantry nearby? Seems logical to me, but apparently logic only works for you if it's in favor of the garbage AV system you refuse to remove your rose tinted glasses for.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
1. Said weapons were still unlikely to wound a Carnifex. Greater array only applies if said greater array has a chance to do anything. Quite frankly, that's already comparable to vehicles now. So good for you for making my point more valid.
Also I LOL at you trying to say there were trade offs for Monstrous Creatures not being vehicles. Seriously it's like you didn't play the game at all 3rd through 7th. Monstrous Creatures were always better.

There is a significant difference between unlikely and impossible. AV 10 could not be Glanced by a Lasgun, but T6 could be Wounded, even if easily deflected.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
2. If a Rocket Launcher blew off part of a vehicle why wouldn't you try to take pot shots at the innards if there's no infantry nearby? Seems logical to me, but apparently logic only works for you if it's in favor of the garbage AV system you refuse to remove your rose tinted glasses for.

There are two problems with that. Usually if a rocket blew off a part of the Vehicle, often there is nothing really left to hit in there that could be harmed by small arms. Rockets that are intended to damage armor usually do some considerable damage to whatever is behind that armor. For those rockets that aren't intended to damage armor but bypass it (like a sabot round), they only leave a very small hole behind (and still severely mess up what is behind that armor). In either case, you're shooting at something that already survived a rocket blast and you're using small arms afterward. Consider this logically and one can see that it is a bit preposterous.

At best, you disable the Vehicle sufficiently for the crew to want to get out (fear of fire or internal smoke), at which point the small arms aren't aimed at the Vehicle, but at the much softer crew.

So, small arms against an armored Vehicle are only practical to get the Vehicle's attention away from something that will harm the Vehicle, otherwise one is not using logic at all.

 Charistoph wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
1. Said weapons were still unlikely to wound a Carnifex. Greater array only applies if said greater array has a chance to do anything. Quite frankly, that's already comparable to vehicles now. So good for you for making my point more valid.
Also I LOL at you trying to say there were trade offs for Monstrous Creatures not being vehicles. Seriously it's like you didn't play the game at all 3rd through 7th. Monstrous Creatures were always better.

There is a significant difference between unlikely and impossible. AV 10 could not be Glanced by a Lasgun, but T6 could be Wounded, even if easily deflected....

3rd-5th that made a difference. With 6th-7th and hull points AV10 may have been immune to S3 but it took way fewer boltgun shots to drop an AV10 vehicle than it took to drop a Carnifex.

 Insectum7 wrote:

To add something of actual value, a quote from Forge of Mars:

Despise infantry if you must. Crush them underfoot, by all means. But do not ignore them. Battlefields are littered with the wreckage of Titans whose crews ignored infantry.

Prove that they're talking about Lasguns.

Infantry can be a big threat to heavy vehicles, sure. With weapons other than their battle rifles.

In fact, this is the machine spirit of a titan itself talking, referring to a time when its armor was penetrated by tyranid light infantry ambushing it in a forest, resulting in its defeat.

I'd also like to point out that the goal posts have now been moved from "anti-infantry weapons shouldn't be able to destroy tanks" to "lasguns shouldn't be able to hurt titans".

Cool, but there were groups who used the *core* rules, without the FW rules (which were entirely optional).

So, no, in the actual core rules of the game, Ripper Swarms could charge flying Valkyries. Such immersion.

Except your wrong, let me explain

Originally valkyries were FW exclusive AV10 flyers , the FW flyer rules were available to use on a permission basis as they did not exist in the core game.

GW decided to make the model in plastic for the core game upgrading it to an AV 12 GROUND VEHICLE for use in 5th edition as they did not introduce actual rules for flyers until 6th.

Now yes it was a flyer according to FW rules and it does look like an aircraft, however as it was implemented is was no different than any other skimmer transport like the tau devilfish so infantry could assault it because it was not a flyer. so that's where your immersion breaks the simple solution was to use the flyer rules as we have done as they existed at the same time as optional rules.

They *did* have their own version, but it was stupid, because as we've discussed, there was no risk unless you chose to stand in the way.

I already showed that wasn't true. even moving out of the way a deff rolla still caused wounds as did the destroyer vehicle upgrade for chaos. the rules existed even if you did not use them or did not know about them.

Why the disparity? You can say "but they had a different ruleset", but you're missing the point that this is the problem we're talking about. Vehicles and Monstrous Creatures were treated differently, and this led to "un-immersive" situations

That was not a problem the fact they were treated differently created more immersion not less if anything the current "everything is a monster" with toughness and wounds is less immersive.
if a car tries t run me over my response would be very different that being run down by a large land animal like a kodiak bear that has teeth, claws and arms not just a box with wheels.

See what I mean? I'm not disputing that the rule existed, but I am saying that, according to "muh immersion", I should be able to shoot at the crew - represented by lasguns being able to damage a tank on a lucky roll.

Do you understand now?

Yet you miss the fact your talking about CORE rules that apply to all vehicles equally in the game. you try to make the argument VS an open topped trukk with an un armored boy driving it, but the same rule would have to apply to a land raider that is completely closed up with no way to hurt the crew (who are also in power armor inside the raider). Now if your group wants to house rule in the 2nd edition hit charts you have the power to do so but it does slow the game down.

Explain. Why is it a problem that lasguns can kill a damaged Titan with extreme amounts of luck, but have no such issue killing a Terminator who probably has less weak points.

Because terminators are people in suits of armor that can be wounded, titans are armored vehicles that are not alive to be wounded. the vehicle equivalent to what your trying to represent was the old damage chart-cumulative death through progressive damage to parts and equipment. you just needed to bring something that was designed to kill armor not designed to kill infantry.-bringing the right tool for the job (and getting it into the right position) was part of the tactical play of the old editions.

Finally, you're beginning to understand that previous editions weren't all perfect "muh immersion" simulators.

I already said as much in my earlier post, the problem is that 9th is actually worse at it.

40k isn't a historical game - comparisons to real world game systems don't work. Army compositions aren't part of 40k's verisimilitude.

And why shouldn't grunts be able to shoot through vision slits?

Yet there are certain realities that are part of human nature and experience that are ingrained that we readily identify with.

And this is why-

Go ahead and shoot at the periscope view finder to your hearts content it wont do anything to the crew other than annoy them

Ironic, considering that the scatter laser was considered a premier anti-tank weapon in 6th/7th, because of non-immersive rules

Only because GW introduced the stupid hull points rules that rewarded tickling vehicles to death via high ROF weapons that could not actually kill them for real but could glance them to death while doing no actual damage. it was bad game design to have a double damage system for one unit type. it can be done correctly as they have with DUST, GW however failed at it. .

I wonder to what extent the WAAC attitudes and ever increasing emphasis on competitive play and formats is driving this

Considering GW openly went to those player groups for input on writing 9th i dare say it is the main drive and focus of the edition.

I find it entirely believable that small ballistic weaponry wouldn't do a damn thing. I haven't been in the military but I have handled guns, and we had a metal spinner target that was essentially an inch-or-so thick cast iron plate that could just take a seemingly infinite number of hits from anything less heavily propelled than... I think it was .308 bolt-action rifle rounds that finally gouged the crap out of it? I may have that wrong, but presumably 40K armor could very easily be made that would just treat any such small arm with the same degree of total blasé.

But what about small energy weapons, even, say, the lasgun? Would massed fire heat a Russ' armor enough to melt it or bake the crew or make ammo explode or something in the timescale of game of 40K? Does the energy get absorbed, or does the armor have little mirrors baked into it or something?

No they don't do a damn thing other than scratch the paint we have real world examples of that. i remember seeing one of the famous tank runs through baghdad during the closing days of the second gulf war where the iraqis fired loads of shots from AK-47s (7.62mm), the tanks paint job was pockmarked with little nicks, that's all.

As for las guns to generate the kind of heat required they would have to have a constant beam held on to a tiny area for an extended period of time like a cutting torch, not something you are going to achieve with a rapid fire las gun.

Also tanks are mostly fairly blind. Unless the tank commander peeks out the cupola. I don't think his face would be bullet proof.

periscopes and cameras

not a full 360' view but not blind, esepcially the modern ones.

This is a game about putting your little plastic models down on a tabletop and playing a game with someone else's little plastic models. "The Lore" is bs, made up to sell little plastic models.

I'm going to explain this real slow because apparently it's a toughie

If you make a game

and the basic unit of one particular army

has NO WAY AT ALL to interact with the basic unit of another army

Yes it is a game, but the LORE is what draws and keeps people playing the game. there are far better written games out there with great minis than 40K but they have nowhere near the market hold that GW does because of the IP.

Second point we go back to what the older editions were about-no not every unit was good at dealing with every other unit, your job as the general was to bring what was needed and get it to where ti was needed to deal with all possible threats.

The only time that's been the case is with Knights, as the basic unit of every other army is just some infantry model and perfectly shootable with basic weapons.

In which case that's not a bad game, as the problem only exists because of one faction out of 20.

I'd just call that a poor implementation of Knights. . . Which it was.

FW had this solved way back in 3rd edition-want to bring a flyer or a superheavy-be a good sportsman and give a heads up to your opponent/get permission first so they can be prepared to deal with it and not have it dropped on them. the guy at our store who has an imperial knight army will say "hey i want to play my knights" i say fine i will just swap out my flamers and heavy bolters for melta or lascannons etc.. so my infantry have a chance to deal with it.

The AV mechanic is the one that I'm focussing on atm. Here's my go-to response for your type of statement now: Reinstating certain aspects of former editions does not necessitate the reinstatement of ALL aspects of former editions.

Five min in the penalty box for you.

Also, there was a tradeoff for MCs in that era, where it was more likely for them to take damage from a Lascannon, but it would require multiple hits. And being only T6, the Fex was engageable by a far greater array of weapons than something that was AV 12+.

Bingo-MCs couldn't be one shotted but they were also vulnerable to pretty much all small arms fire, increasing the threat nature of the battlefield for them VS an effective 1 wound vehicle for roughly the same points cost.

The end of Saving Private Ryan makes the point quite clearly.

But that 1911 though (J/K)

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Spoiler:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

panzerfront14 wrote:
To make a point regarding the effect of small arms on tanks, it depends on several factors, the armor of the tank in question, what the intent is. Tanks often have hatches open and crew looking around, the tank commander in particular so they have better situational awareness. Yes no amount of .556 fire will penetrate the armor of even a T-55 tank which is a rather weak tank on modern battlefields. Yet fire can and will strip off outer equipment from the tank. If a bullet impacts one of our periscopes and disables it, then yes the tank was "hurt" by a weapon completely incapable of penetrating its armor, though it will continue to function.

Now in the event the armor suffers major damage, such as the damage a Melta weapon would inflict, then yes the big gapping hole in the armor could be targeted by small arms and in all likelihood the crew would be slaughtered in the cramped confines of the tank, with bullets ricocheting inside the tank and turning them into slurry. This of course assumes the intervention of a true AT gun.

Its also why I think the true AT guns of 40k should be very much capable of 1 shoting tanks. Should one of my battlewagons get targeted by a Leman Russ Vanquisher or a Tau Railgun, I should suffer a catastrophic ammunition detonation or something to that effect from those weapons. Thats the trade off of anti infantry weapons being completely useless, if that is what you're going for, then AT guns should be absolutely devastating, as opposed to spamming plasma guns which i commonly see used over most AT weaponry.

You basically just described 1st through 4th edition, where dedicated AT weapons would regularly one-shot or cripple vehicles with a solid penetrating hit.

You mean the same editions where a Lascannon couldn't kill a Carnifex in one hit? You're really just picking and choosing what's immersion breaking.

The AV mechanic is the one that I'm focussing on atm. Here's my go-to response for your type of statement now: Reinstating certain aspects of former editions does not necessitate the reinstatement of ALL aspects of former editions.

Five min in the penalty box for you.

Also, there was a tradeoff for MCs in that era, where it was more likely for them to take damage from a Lascannon, but it would require multiple hits. And being only T6, the Fex was engageable by a far greater array of weapons than something that was AV 12+.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

If there aren't infantry near the tank they're not just gonna sit there idly. If there are infantry near said tank, said anti infantry weapons are pointed at that instead of the tank. Quit picking and choosing what's immersion breaking. Either the game is immersive or it isn't.

Really Slayer? Are tgey going to empty clips of ammunition into the armor plates in the hopes of achieving something? Is that your stand on the matter?

1. Said weapons were still unlikely to wound a Carnifex. Greater array only applies if said greater array has a chance to do anything. Quite frankly, that's already comparable to vehicles now. So good for you for making my point more valid.
Also I LOL at you trying to say there were trade offs for Monstrous Creatures not being vehicles. Seriously it's like you didn't play the game at all 3rd through 7th. Monstrous Creatures were always better.
2. If a Rocket Launcher blew off part of a vehicle why wouldn't you try to take pot shots at the innards if there's no infantry nearby? Seems logical to me, but apparently logic only works for you if it's in favor of the garbage AV system you refuse to remove your rose tinted glasses for.

1. Greater Array is still greater array. A Carnifex with T6 could be wounded by a S3 lasgun. The same Lasgun couldn't hurt ANY vehicle in the game.
@ your attempted LOL, MCs were on a tight leash in 3rd and 4th ed. The Wraithlord was the toughest one you'd commonly see, it only had three wounds and a Lascannon wounded it on a 3+ and ignored armor. A buffed out Carnifex with T7 and a 2+ save was wounded by a Lascannon on a 2+, and didn't get an armor save. This was long before the days of Riptide MCs with 3++ etc, and the MC system worked fine.
2. Go find me a scenario in real life where whole parts of a tank were blown off and troops then engaged with rifles to shoot at internal spaces. If a tank has gotten whole chunks blown off, the tank is already out of action. Minus the scenario of opening the hatch and firing into the crew compartment (assaulting a vehicle in 40K) I'm going to suggest that your proposed scenario is not really a thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jidmah wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

To add something of actual value, a quote from Forge of Mars:

Despise infantry if you must. Crush them underfoot, by all means. But do not ignore them. Battlefields are littered with the wreckage of Titans whose crews ignored infantry.

Prove that they're talking about Lasguns.

Infantry can be a big threat to heavy vehicles, sure. With weapons other than their battle rifles.

In fact, this is the machine spirit of a titan itself talking, referring to a time when its armor was penetrated by tyranid light infantry ambushing it in a forest, resulting in its defeat.

Did the Titan say how these light infantry were a danger? Were they spraying Fleshborers at it? Were they attacking it in CC? Were they in fact Genestealers, known for their armor penetrating capability? Did they have some special equipment? Do you have any details?

Because of course I'd expect well equipped infantry to be able to hurt a Titan, but I'm thinking things like anti-tank bombs, Meltaguns, Powerfists, things of that nature. I'm not denying Infantry a chance to hurt vehicles, not at all. I just don't think they should be doing it with their standard issue battle rifle.

 Jidmah wrote:
I'd also like to point out that the goal posts have now been moved from "anti-infantry weapons shouldn't be able to destroy tanks" to "lasguns shouldn't be able to hurt titans".

I entered this conversation on this exchange.:

 Jidmah wrote:

 aphyon wrote:

But, in all honesty, how often have you seen a Titan killed by lasguns?

The fact that it is even possible is the problem.

Lasguns cannot kill a titan, period.

So Lasguns against Titans is where we're at.

Real life doesn't matter!
This is a game about space monks in power armour shooting rocket bullets, sentient, sapient fungus beings that are a threat to the above rocket monks. There's a literal dimension of chaos that has Demons! Self repairing skeleton robots with pokeball star gods. Space Elves.

Current and historical military stuff is so out of its depth in ways we can't fathom. Lasguns may be, in relation to the other thing in the year 40,0000, a basic weapon, butas a comparison, look at the state of military stuff from 40,000yrs ago, image if those people saw our current tech, and that's just one planet of one race.

 Blndmage wrote:
Real life doesn't matter!
This is a game about space monks in power armour shooting rocket bullets, sentient, sapient fungus beings that are a threat to the above rocket monks. There's a literal dimension of chaos that has Demons! Self repairing skeleton robots with pokeball star gods. Space Elves.

Current and historical military stuff is so out of its depth in ways we can't fathom. Lasguns may be, in relation to the other thing in the year 40,0000, a basic weapon, butas a comparison, look at the state of military stuff from 40,000yrs ago, image if those people saw our current tech, and that's just one planet of one race.

The Lasgun has the same stats as an Autogun, and the Autogun is the equivalent of a modern assault rifle. Also, even in this imaginary setting there are anti infantry weapons and anti tank weapons. And as has been noted before, there's a legacy of prior editions that set some precedent for expectation. There's over 20 years of legacy promoting the idea that in this fictional universe lots of weapons simply can't hurt heavy vehicles.

Heck, even in Star Wars they had armor that's "too strong for blasters!".

 Blndmage wrote:
Real life doesn't matter!
This is a game about space monks in power armour shooting rocket bullets, sentient, sapient fungus beings that are a threat to the above rocket monks. There's a literal dimension of chaos that has Demons! Self repairing skeleton robots with pokeball star gods. Space Elves.

Current and historical military stuff is so out of its depth in ways we can't fathom. Lasguns may be, in relation to the other thing in the year 40,0000, a basic weapon, butas a comparison, look at the state of military stuff from 40,000yrs ago, image if those people saw our current tech, and that's just one planet of one race.

Oh, absolutely. These discussions and their outcomes are all fundamentally pointless, but so is, you know, playing the actual game. That doesn't mean that they can't be fun, interesting, or thought-provoking.

In the end it does boil down to people who play models that shouldn't or think they shouldn't be wounded by stuff like lasguns puting arguments against it, and does that do not run such units claim that they very much should be able to do it.

It is like the whole should armies have special rules or not. Everyone wants their to have them, and other people to not have theirs.