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.

I'm really looking forward to the release of the new Kratos tank for Horus heresy - mainly because they have said it will have rules for 40K!

I love the model, it looks like a proper marine tank and not a floating brick with loads of tiny guns on it.

The problem is all marine tanks are pretty useless in game!

The is from a combination of poor defensive stats and massive over pointing in many cases. They are universally useless in combat which is a major problem in the close confines of standard tables but the main reason is they just don't interact well with terrain in modern 40K.

Their poor mobility combined with not being able to benefit from or move through most terrain types just make them unplayable.


So how will they make the Kratos playable?

I assume a 2+ save and likely T8 - most nid monsters have moved to that as a baseline so large tanks should have at least that.
Imperial vehicles with invulns seems off to me and a 2+ with AoC is likely enough.

I has lots of guns and I don't think it will be short on firepower.

How to make it actually playable though? Could it be allowed to move through ruins and other terrain - tanks used to be able to just smash their way through stuff.

Bring backl a form of tank shock? infantry models should never stop a giant tank from moving.

Anyone else looking forward to this tank and hoping against hope it will actually be playable? I really miss using my tanks :-(

Feel to me like a big part of the tank problem in 40K is there's no real disincentive to charging them with infantry. As if a tank's gonna stop politely while you chuck grenades down its pipes. Getting up close to a fully-functional tank, whether you're running towards it or it's driving towards you, should be a borderline suicidal move for all but the heaviest, toughest infantry.

 Nazrak wrote:
Feel to me like a big part of the tank problem in 40K is there's no real disincentive to charging them with infantry. As if a tank's gonna stop politely while you chuck grenades down its pipes. Getting up close to a fully-functional tank, whether you're running towards it or it's driving towards you, should be a borderline suicidal move for all but the heaviest, toughest infantry.

Except its not. Getting infantry right up to a tank with grenades is actually the most dangerous situation for the tank.

AoC has helped the durability of all of the 2+ save tanks a lot. Some of them could still do with some points cuts though, possibly. But even with that, loyalists probably still wouldn't use them very much, as they're too hung up on CORE (gotta have those rerolls ). Chaos can still find use for a fairly priced tank though, the PBC shows that.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
AoC has helped the durability of all of the 2+ save tanks a lot. Some of them could still do with some points cuts though, possibly. But even with that, loyalists probably still wouldn't use them very much, as they're too hung up on CORE (gotta have those rerolls ). Chaos can still find use for a fairly priced tank though, the PBC shows that.

isnt the PGB fielded because its got everything that tanks would need to be good?

i has :

High toughness
good save/invuln (2+ and 5++ are mostly redundant together)
Damage reduction
strong guns (entropy)
utility guns (mortar)

Every vehicle should get damage reduction at the very least

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Nazrak wrote:
Feel to me like a big part of the tank problem in 40K is there's no real disincentive to charging them with infantry. As if a tank's gonna stop politely while you chuck grenades down its pipes. Getting up close to a fully-functional tank, whether you're running towards it or it's driving towards you, should be a borderline suicidal move for all but the heaviest, toughest infantry.

Except its not. Getting infantry right up to a tank with grenades is actually the most dangerous situation for the tank.

True, but at the moment it's also about the safest situation for the infantry, which also doesn't feel right.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
AoC has helped the durability of all of the 2+ save tanks a lot. Some of them could still do with some points cuts though, possibly. But even with that, loyalists probably still wouldn't use them very much, as they're too hung up on CORE (gotta have those rerolls ). Chaos can still find use for a fairly priced tank though, the PBC shows that.

isnt the PGB fielded because its got everything that tanks would need to be good?

i has :

High toughness
good save/invuln (2+ and 5++ are mostly redundant together)
Damage reduction
strong guns (entropy)
utility guns (mortar)

Every vehicle should get damage reduction at the very least

Every Astartes tank that I'm aware of is either T7 or T8. AoC effectively turns a 2+ into a 5++ against AP-4, which is where most of the most commonly used AT weapons sit. It also keeps you at a 2+ against AP-1, a 3+ against AP-2, and a 4+ against AP-3. I'm not sure if you need damage reduction on top of that.

As for weapons, that's on a tank by tank basis. A basic Land Raider is pretty undergunned for its price because of the swinginess of lascannons. But an Achilles hits like a freight train. The various Sicarans do fine against their preferred targets, and are fast enough to get on target. Right now, I think it comes down to points, at least for most of the 2+ tanks. And the idiocy of Martial Legacy, of course, for the HH era tanks.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
AoC has helped the durability of all of the 2+ save tanks a lot. Some of them could still do with some points cuts though, possibly. But even with that, loyalists probably still wouldn't use them very much, as they're too hung up on CORE (gotta have those rerolls ). Chaos can still find use for a fairly priced tank though, the PBC shows that.

isnt the PGB fielded because its got everything that tanks would need to be good?

i has :

High toughness
good save/invuln (2+ and 5++ are mostly redundant together)
Damage reduction
strong guns (entropy)
utility guns (mortar)

Every vehicle should get damage reduction at the very least

Every Astartes tank that I'm aware of is either T7 or T8. AoC effectively turns a 2+ into a 5++ against AP-4, which is where most of the most commonly used AT weapons sit. It also keeps you at a 2+ against AP-1, a 3+ against AP-2, and a 4+ against AP-3. I'm not sure if you need damage reduction on top of that.

As for weapons, that's on a tank by tank basis. A basic Land Raider is pretty undergunned for its price because of the swinginess of lascannons. But an Achilles hits like a freight train. The various Sicarans do fine against their preferred targets, and are fast enough to get on target. Right now, I think it comes down to points, at least for most of the 2+ tanks. And the idiocy of Martial Legacy, of course, for the HH era tanks.

ML just needs to go or get replaced by "only one ML unit per 1k points" - but im only here to point out that the mastodon is T9

Astartes tanks, certainly those from the codex are mainly T7 and have a 3+ save - A couple (vindicator, landraider) have T8 2+.

Forgeworld has more with sicarans having a 2+ but as mentioned they all cost a CP for some reason.

Making most of them T8 2+ base would go along way to solving their durability issue but you would then have to add something else to differentiate the more durable ones. I suspect some annoying -1 damage or ignore AP rule but would much prefer to just use the base stats and give them T9.

Doesn't help with the issue that they just can't operate on a 9th edition board.

nekooni wrote:

ML just needs to go or get replaced by "only one ML unit per 1k points":

That would be even worse than what we have right now....
ML should be nothing more than a fluff status, especially for Legions.

I hate to break this to you, but they aren't going to make this one specific tank uniquely playable when all the other tank options are not. Its going to suffer the same drawbacks and disadvantages of every other tank in the marines arsenal, its not going to get a special "drive through walls" rule, nor is it going to get a special tank shock rule. It will probably get T8 2+, plus whatever rules for its guns, and a points cost in the range of 300-400 points.

Slipspace wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Nazrak wrote:
Feel to me like a big part of the tank problem in 40K is there's no real disincentive to charging them with infantry. As if a tank's gonna stop politely while you chuck grenades down its pipes. Getting up close to a fully-functional tank, whether you're running towards it or it's driving towards you, should be a borderline suicidal move for all but the heaviest, toughest infantry.

Except its not. Getting infantry right up to a tank with grenades is actually the most dangerous situation for the tank.

True, but at the moment it's also about the safest situation for the infantry, which also doesn't feel right.

Yeah, this is kinda what I was driving at. No issue with tanks getting messed up by a close assault, but it shouldn't be a no-brainer for the guys carrying it out. "Dropping grenades into it is bad news for a tank" and "getting near to a moving tank is not great from a self-preservation perspective" aren't mutually-exclusive concepts.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

nekooni wrote:

ML just needs to go or get replaced by "only one ML unit per 1k points":

That would be even worse than what we have right now....
ML should be nothing more than a fluff status, especially for Legions.

Honestly, the old "character tax" from 7th was better than what we have now. Of course, no tax at all for the Legions, as fw did in 8th, was best.

I've always thought tanks should have an inherent +1 AC against any weapon below S8 in addition to an inbuilt -1 DMG, both of which would serve to flavor heavy harmor. Only the most damaging weapons (LC, Melta, Missiles) should have sway over doing major damage to a tank.

For 40K I also think a strat that is a vehicle version of Transhuman should exist to serve as game rules flavoring the Machine Spirit and skill of the driver and gunner.

chaos0xomega wrote:
I hate to break this to you, but they aren't going to make this one specific tank uniquely playable when all the other tank options are not. Its going to suffer the same drawbacks and disadvantages of every other tank in the marines arsenal, its not going to get a special "drive through walls" rule, nor is it going to get a special tank shock rule. It will probably get T8 2+, plus whatever rules for its guns, and a points cost in the range of 300-400 points.

Don't worry I know it won't get any special rules to alleviate the general problems Imperial tanks have in this edition, but its fun to dream and chat about on the internet :-D

Looking at the game as a whole we can see that tanks with fly are perfectly usable in general - Eldar ones of all flavours, Tau, Custodes, etc... and that fast cheap vehicles are also usable. Nid monsters and marine dreads are also in a good place partly due to being nasty in combat.
Its no shock that expensive, slow models that can't navigate the table well and are useless in combat are in trouble - its easy to see and hopefully GW will fix the issue with a general rule in a balance dataslate, its the best we can hope for.

Something along the lines of:

Give a list of models given the TANK keyword, likely also added in errata to their individual books - this list would be VEHICLE models without the FLY, DREADNOUGHT, HELBRUTE, WARDOG, ARMIGER or TITANIC keywords and with minimum T7 and 10W. That should cover most things that are generally considered tanks and are currently hampered by the rules. Basically larger models that don't fly and don't walk.

Models with the TANK Keyword can move through Area Terrain and INFANTRY, SWARM, BEAST & CAVALRY models as if they were not there but cannot end their move in a position the model cannot occupy. (this includes moving normally whilst in engagement range of enemy infantry models).
Models with the TANK Keyword reduce incoming damage by 1 when wounded by weapons with S7 or less.
Models with the TANK Keyword have WS 3+ in a turn in which they successfully charged.

This would fix alot of movement issues, add some survivability (I don't like -1 dam but they have already given extra armour with AoC which would have been my general vehicle survivability fix) and allow tanks to actually do something (still no much) by running people over.

I don't think Tanks have special issues. The problem is just comparable points and synergies.

Compare a Gladiator Lancer to say a Rupture Cannon Tyrannofex, a Hammerhead or a Fire Prism. (Maybe unkind to pick the Gladiator generally considered dead on arrival - but still.)

The conclusion would quickly be that two fractionally better lascannons (S10, AP-3, D3+3 damage) is kind of a joke at this point in the edition.

Compare them to:
Rupture Cannon: 3 shots, S14, AP-4 D6+4 damage.
Prism Cannon: 2 shots, S14 AP-5 3D3 damage (or 3D3 shots, S6 AP-2 2 damage).
Railgun: 1 Shot, S14, AP-6 (no invuls), D3+6 damage and 3 mortal wounds on successful wound.
(Could do Exocrine's here, but its kind of a different profile. But an average of 8 S8 AP-4 3 damage shots is also superior by some distance.)

There are some points variances here, that cover some differences - but still, the gap is incredible. The fact an Exocrine or Tyrannofex get a small number of high S AP-1 2 damage attacks really isn't bothering anyone. Sure it might beat your tank almost never doing anything - but so what? The issue is that 2+ save - combined with the fact Tyranids have ways to throw things like Transhuman and 4++ on to these monsters. Who have 15 or 17 wounds compare to 12 for the Gladiator. The fact the Hammerhead and Fire Prism have fly is a perk for them - but its more that their damage is much more significant for their points.

When GW inevitably do marines 4.0, they'll massively soup up these stats. The Lancer will probably be 2 shots, S14, AP-4, D6+3 that ignore invuls because "Marines is Best" or something equally silly.

And its entirely possible they could do so with the Kratos. Or they can make it say 350-400 points while only having the firepower of a 250~ point unit. In which case it will be weak.

Interesting thought I had, the spartan is a LoW in 40k, the Kratos is a similar size to the Spartan, so Kratos is maybe a LoW in 40k making it borderline useless again?

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

nekooni wrote:

ML just needs to go or get replaced by "only one ML unit per 1k points":

That would be even worse than what we have right now....
ML should be nothing more than a fluff status, especially for Legions.

Thats why my first suggestion is to remove it entirely. If they still want to limit how many relics are on the table (which is clearly the intent behind ML), 1 per x points would be way better than the CP tax imho.

1k was just an example, any less would basically mean that the rule has no effect - i dont think youd ever go beyond eg 4 relics in a 2k pts game, if we use eg 500pts thats as good as not having a limit at all.

The first problem are not the games rules, but the price of the kit.
Quite a few of the newer tanks that got released haven't been worth it from a custommer perspective, that they suffer ruleswise on top makes for a mixture that keeps many of these tanks out of the game.

Not Online!!! wrote:
The first problem are not the games rules, but the price of the kit.
Quite a few of the newer tanks that got released haven't been worth it from a custommer perspective, that they suffer ruleswise on top makes for a mixture that keeps many of these tanks out of the game.

Thats completely pointless though. Obviously the game rules decide whether or not something sucks. Money simply is not a balancing factor.

I have a ton of marine vehicles (im sitting at something beyond 18k pts of salamanders total), but most of the vehicles went unused throughout the current edition. That had nothing to do with price, and everything to do with rules not even being viable in casual games. Basically i only used Sv2 vehicles and rhinos.

nekooni wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
The first problem are not the games rules, but the price of the kit.
Quite a few of the newer tanks that got released haven't been worth it from a custommer perspective, that they suffer ruleswise on top makes for a mixture that keeps many of these tanks out of the game.

Thats completely pointless though. Obviously the game rules decide whether or not something sucks. Money simply is not a balancing factor.

I have a ton of marine vehicles (im sitting at something beyond 18k pts of salamanders total), but most of the vehicles went unused throughout the current edition. That had nothing to do with price, and everything to do with rules not even being viable in casual games. Basically i only used Sv2 vehicles and rhinos.

I disagree, price can determine availabiltiy and by extention influence the lcoal meta massivly, independantly of the "meta"-Choices and game balance. (which hasn't been great for vehicles since the stepping away from armor values and in the first place from the introduction of HP to them)

Beyond sucking even at a casual level often, you don't see most of the new SoB tanks on a table simply because a castigator is price wise not justifyable compared to a predator.

I am not saying that price is THE deciding factor aswell, i said it's a mixture and it only really applies to the newer vehicles aswell, which have a diffrent pricing structure and tag than your old school preds and land raiders.

Not Online!!! wrote:

nekooni wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
The first problem are not the games rules, but the price of the kit.
Quite a few of the newer tanks that got released haven't been worth it from a custommer perspective, that they suffer ruleswise on top makes for a mixture that keeps many of these tanks out of the game.

Thats completely pointless though. Obviously the game rules decide whether or not something sucks. Money simply is not a balancing factor.

I have a ton of marine vehicles (im sitting at something beyond 18k pts of salamanders total), but most of the vehicles went unused throughout the current edition. That had nothing to do with price, and everything to do with rules not even being viable in casual games. Basically i only used Sv2 vehicles and rhinos.

I disagree, price can determine availabiltiy and by extention influence the lcoal meta massivly, independantly of the "meta"-Choices and game balance. (which hasn't been great for vehicles since the stepping away from armor values and in the first place from the introduction of HP to them)

Beyond sucking even at a casual level often, you don't see most of the new SoB tanks on a table simply because a castigator is price wise not justifyable compared to a predator.

I am not saying that price is THE deciding factor aswell, i said it's a mixture and it only really applies to the newer vehicles aswell, which have a diffrent pricing structure and tag than your old school preds and land raiders.

My experience is very different - Land raiders could very well not exist, looking at my local gaming area. Certain primaris tanks showed up everywhere when they were good (8th), and completely vanished from tables with 9th. Ppl still own these, but noone played them.

With FW resin models id say Price is a factor, but thats nothing recent. Were seeing a massiv price drop with those tanks when moving to plastic, and the Kratos and spartan are cheap if you consider them 30k models.

GW games are not a cheap hobby though, but thats true from basic Infantry all the way to superheavies

nekooni wrote:


My experience is very different - Land raiders could very well not exist, looking at my local gaming area. Certain primaris tanks showed up everywhere when they were good (8th), and completely vanished from tables with 9th. Ppl still own these, but noone played them.

With FW resin models id say Price is a factor, but thats nothing recent. Were seeing a massiv price drop with those tanks when moving to plastic, and the Kratos and spartan are cheap if you consider them 30k models.

GW games are not a cheap hobby though, but thats true from basic Infantry all the way to superheavies

Of course good rules do indeed facilitate more table time, afterall fielding units that are just ineffective for what you pay in pts is rarely a nice experience. Especially that is the case when mechanically the balance is off, which considering 8th being rarely balanced and 9th having just recently gone down that route, again, is not surprising especially for "weaker" armies externaly to avoid any type of unit that can't compete on the table at an adequate level.

It also leads in the case of prices to people attempting to sidestep the pricetag if a unit is good, one of the favourite exemples of that is scratch / semi scratchbuilt mekguns.

overall in the best case, we would see a design paradigm shift that makes tanks and especially transports beyond gunships more fieldable, there it is indeed a question of mechanics that hinder their deployment, afterall why field a transport for an often rather absurd ammount of pts when walking is basically just as fast and the board has gotten smaller aswell.
Why bother with tanks when you are highly vulnerable to what has been reffered in the past to being "glanced" to death thanks to a too small HP pool and too low toughness valiues? NVM movement mechanics which favour flying or infantry.

I'm really looking forward to the release of the new Kratos tank for Horus heresy - mainly because they have said it will have rules for 40K!

Where did you get this information ?

From my understanding of the Warhammer Community article in which the Kratos was revealed, I'm not expecting it to have rules for 40K because afterall :

The Kratos is all but extinct in the 41st Millennium, but it was a common sight during the brutal battles of the Horus Heresy, where every Legion would field these armoured behemoths as line-breakers.

Selfcontrol wrote:

I'm really looking forward to the release of the new Kratos tank for Horus heresy - mainly because they have said it will have rules for 40K!

Where did you get this information ?

From my understanding of the Warhammer Community article in which the Kratos was revealed, I'm not expecting it to have rules for 40K because afterall :

The Kratos is all but extinct in the 41st Millennium, but it was a common sight during the brutal battles of the Horus Heresy, where every Legion would field these armoured behemoths as line-breakers.

From the sunday preview article on WarCom

The Kratos will be earning itself a Warhammer 40,000 datasheet to boot. While it’s rare on the battlefields of the 41st Millennium, it’s not extinct – and it packs just the same wallop.

Pretty sure if it had 40k rules it’d basically be a Land Raider with better weapons.

M 10”, BS3+, T8, W16, Sv2+, AoC

Maybe a -1 damage cause it trades transport capacity for more armour and weapons.

It doesn't happen to have lore about being fitted with a small scale power field generator?

Tyel wrote:
I don't think Tanks have special issues. The problem is just comparable points and synergies.

Compare a Gladiator Lancer to say a Rupture Cannon Tyrannofex, a Hammerhead or a Fire Prism. (Maybe unkind to pick the Gladiator generally considered dead on arrival - but still.)

The conclusion would quickly be that two fractionally better lascannons (S10, AP-3, D3+3 damage) is kind of a joke at this point in the edition.

Compare them to:
Rupture Cannon: 3 shots, S14, AP-4 D6+4 damage.
Prism Cannon: 2 shots, S14 AP-5 3D3 damage (or 3D3 shots, S6 AP-2 2 damage).
Railgun: 1 Shot, S14, AP-6 (no invuls), D3+6 damage and 3 mortal wounds on successful wound.
(Could do Exocrine's here, but its kind of a different profile. But an average of 8 S8 AP-4 3 damage shots is also superior by some distance.)

There are some points variances here, that cover some differences - but still, the gap is incredible. The fact an Exocrine or Tyrannofex get a small number of high S AP-1 2 damage attacks really isn't bothering anyone. Sure it might beat your tank almost never doing anything - but so what? The issue is that 2+ save - combined with the fact Tyranids have ways to throw things like Transhuman and 4++ on to these monsters. Who have 15 or 17 wounds compare to 12 for the Gladiator. The fact the Hammerhead and Fire Prism have fly is a perk for them - but its more that their damage is much more significant for their points.

When GW inevitably do marines 4.0, they'll massively soup up these stats. The Lancer will probably be 2 shots, S14, AP-4, D6+3 that ignore invuls because "Marines is Best" or something equally silly.

And its entirely possible they could do so with the Kratos. Or they can make it say 350-400 points while only having the firepower of a 250~ point unit. In which case it will be weak.

This is completely true, marine vehicle (and necrons to be fair) really suffer from being released at the start of the edition before they massively buffed antitank weapons across the board.
For an even worse comparison throw in a predator annihilator !!!! Makes the gladiator look great.

The Nid monsters are on a different level in terms of stats, better weapons, better W/T/Sav and cheaper on a body that can fight a little. Hopefully GW will recognise the problems and massively cut vehicle points if they're not going to update them.

 WisdomLS wrote:

Selfcontrol wrote:

I'm really looking forward to the release of the new Kratos tank for Horus heresy - mainly because they have said it will have rules for 40K!

Where did you get this information ?

From my understanding of the Warhammer Community article in which the Kratos was revealed, I'm not expecting it to have rules for 40K because afterall :

The Kratos is all but extinct in the 41st Millennium, but it was a common sight during the brutal battles of the Horus Heresy, where every Legion would field these armoured behemoths as line-breakers.

From the sunday preview article on WarCom

The Kratos will be earning itself a Warhammer 40,000 datasheet to boot. While it’s rare on the battlefields of the 41st Millennium, it’s not extinct – and it packs just the same wallop.

Thank you for your answer. I'm not very interested in Horus Heresy and I tend to not fully read the Warco articles as a consequence. I missed this information.

 Nazrak wrote:
Feel to me like a big part of the tank problem in 40K is there's no real disincentive to charging them with infantry. As if a tank's gonna stop politely while you chuck grenades down its pipes. Getting up close to a fully-functional tank, whether you're running towards it or it's driving towards you, should be a borderline suicidal move for all but the heaviest, toughest infantry.

It's pretty suicidal as it stands currently unless the tank has most of it's weapons with blast.

A Kratos in 40K with the volkite, two HBs, two LCs, and whatever fills the other turret slot will put a pretty big hurt on charging units.