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.

johnpjones1775 wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I think the larger issue with tanks/vehicles in general is that they're effectively no different than monsters.

I realize that it simplifies the game a bit, but it does seem "bland".

Not sure what should be the "fix" for that, or if it should be changed.

A simple fix T 3x S cannot be wounded by that low S weapon.
Means things like heavy bolters and big shootas can still damage almost everything in the game, but bolters and lasgun, etc cannot damage certain things.
Bolters can still damage vehicles up to T11 and lasguns up to T8.

I'd be more okay with this than with making most tanks flatly immune to bolters. The previous baneblade example would still be really unpleasant, but at least people would be able to plan around not hurting big units once their AT is dead and could still chip away at wounded russes or hellhounds or whatever.

Ultimately, I just want to avoid scenarios where huge chunks of an army aren't allowed to play the game because your opponent brought a skew list. There's a big difference between your rifle boys being on coup de grace duty and not being allowed to attack at all.

So again, please point me towards tournament winning vehicle heavy lists, where armor counts for over 50% of the army cost.

Transports are basically it. And thats light armor. I mean T12+ is over 1k of your points.

It's not this major problem that everyone thinks it is. GW has been trying to force this game into MSU combat for the past 2 editions.

Or we can continue to shackle ourselves to rule systems that were relevant 20 years ago. It's like saying we dedicate resources to rules balance of the Ordinatus, because one kid in the local store still has one, and likes playing it!

... you are aware that Imperial Knights and Chaos Knights are factions that do win tournaments right?

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So again, please point me towards tournament winning vehicle heavy lists, where armor counts for over 50% of the army cost.

I haven't been talking about the current state of affairs. I've been talking about a hypothetical meta resulting from your proposed changes. If you make vehicles impossible to kill once they've wiped out all the enemy anti-tank, then you encourage people to field more vehicles and focus down the anti-tank so that they can spend the rest of the game acting with impunity.

I can't show you tournament results from the dark future you have yet to create.

EDIT: Although you may want to look into the infamous 5th edition leafblower list.

Or we can continue to shackle ourselves to rule systems that were relevant 20 years ago

Lost me here. Vehicles being immune to small arms is how things worked 20 years ago. Letting bolters plink away at rhinos is the new approach that you seem to dislike?

 Kanluwen wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
So, a Bolter into a Carnifex goes from being wounded on a 6 and saving on a 2+... To being wounded on a 6 and saving on a 2+.
Brilliant.

lol, ok and?

It's still better than the old system of "Strength X can't wound Toughness Y, ever".

it literally isn’t better than that.

As someone who played Skitarii as a dedicated army?

Yeah. It is. Trash like Wraithknights, Riptides and other "vehicles but not" being able to just shrug off or ignore by virtue of unit classification things that SHOULD have been their counter shows just how much of a joke the old system was.


The match should never, ever be decided at the listbuilding stage.

If something should have been their counter that’s a completely different issue, from lasguns hurting those same vehicles.

I see people longing for the old vehicle immunity to small arms, which typically are people who big up the HH ruleset.

Which turned dreads and armigers into monstrous creatures because the ruleset made them too frail or hard to balance. Vehicles are generally considered too fragile and AT spam is house ruled out.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I think the larger issue with tanks/vehicles in general is that they're effectively no different than monsters.

I realize that it simplifies the game a bit, but it does seem "bland".

Not sure what should be the "fix" for that, or if it should be changed.

A simple fix T 3x S cannot be wounded by that low S weapon.
Means things like heavy bolters and big shootas can still damage almost everything in the game, but bolters and lasgun, etc cannot damage certain things.
Bolters can still damage vehicles up to T11 and lasguns up to T8.

I'd be more okay with this than with making most tanks flatly immune to bolters. The previous baneblade example would still be really unpleasant, but at least people would be able to plan around not hurting big units once their AT is dead and could still chip away at wounded russes or hellhounds or whatever.

Ultimately, I just want to avoid scenarios where huge chunks of an army aren't allowed to play the game because your opponent brought a skew list. There's a big difference between your rifle boys being on coup de grace duty and not being allowed to attack at all.

Realistically you can’t avoid that without breaking the game.
Just because you chip off 4 wounds from a leman Russ, doesn’t mean anything. It would take all game and an extreme amount of luck for bolters, lasguns, etc to actually kill a single Russ, and every turn you’d likely be losing a significant number of those units making it even harder.

Then there’s the fact that if everything wounds everything on a 6+ a 20 man blob of guardsmen with flashlights are now better at killing tanks than a 10 man unit of marines with bolters, just by sheer statistics and weight of fire.

GW’s insistence on making units more specialized and less generalized contributes to the problems of losing all your AT in a turn and a half.

Changing the turn composition to consist of 100 (interesting, impactful, non-obvious) decisions and 5 dice rolls instead of 5 decisions and 100 dice rolls would be a starting point for me to even consider checking WH40K again.

I know I'm going to be in the minority here, but when it comes to Strats, I'd like there to be a total of about 6 generic, in-the-main-rules Strats, and perhaps 3-4 unique factions strats per army. Just a minor tone down.

 cuda1179 wrote:
I know I'm going to be in the minority here, but when it comes to Strats, I'd like there to be a total of about 6 generic, in-the-main-rules Strats, and perhaps 3-4 unique factions strats per army. Just a minor tone down.

Bruh I’m with you.
I’d prefer no strats to be honest. Just more rules to remember and gotcha moments if your opponent doesn’t have every strat you may have memorized.

johnpjones1775 wrote:

Then there’s the fact that if everything wounds everything on a 6+ a 20 man blob of guardsmen with flashlights are now better at killing tanks than a 10 man unit of marines with bolters, just by sheer statistics and weight of fire.

No they aren't, because it takes 1/3 of the enemies resources to make the 20 guardsmen go away than the marines, by virtue of the Marines better wounds, toughness and saves. Blink, and the guard are dead. The Marines will stick around longer and be more of a pain in the ass. Also, the Marine's strats will affect their infantry, while the guard's strats will probably not.

It's been said a billion times, but the problem with unit to unit math hammer comparisons is that the game isn't actually played that way. There is no game situation where 10 marines will attack a tank without support or any of the random perks they're entitled to use in an attempt to kill it faster than 20 guardsmen can kill an an identical tank without using support or any of the random perks they're able to use, so I'm not sure there's much value in the comparison.

johnpjones1775 wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
I know I'm going to be in the minority here, but when it comes to Strats, I'd like there to be a total of about 6 generic, in-the-main-rules Strats, and perhaps 3-4 unique factions strats per army. Just a minor tone down.

Bruh I’m with you.
I’d prefer no strats to be honest. Just more rules to remember and gotcha moments if your opponent doesn’t have every strat you may have memorized.

Or you just open your dex to the two pages where all of your detachment rules including strats are located, and leave it in a place where your opponent can grab it, and your opponent does the same and nobody memorizes anything. Once you open the book to the right page, you'll never have to turn a page.

If you use cards (whether overpriced official GW or cheap as dirt homemade), it's even easier.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So again, please point me towards tournament winning vehicle heavy lists, where armor counts for over 50% of the army cost.

Transports are basically it. And thats light armor. I mean T12+ is over 1k of your points.

It's not this major problem that everyone thinks it is. GW has been trying to force this game into MSU combat for the past 2 editions.

Or we can continue to shackle ourselves to rule systems that were relevant 20 years ago. It's like saying we dedicate resources to rules balance of the Ordinatus, because one kid in the local store still has one, and likes playing it!

That's not what you said initially, is it?

Also, a Leman Russ is only T11. Do they not count as tanks or heavy armor?

No, technically a LR is a Medium Tank. A Light tank would be transport or a HellHound. A Heavy Tank would be a Rogal Dorn, or the BaneBlade (Which is technically a super-heavy)

Dudeface wrote:
. . . AT spam is house ruled out.

Is that really a thing for Horus Heresy?

 Hellebore wrote:
Has anyone tracked how often large units have actually been destroyed by small arms in 10th?

Because this looks a lot like latching onto something that is technically true as if it had an actual practical effect.

I'm sure the number has increased since the guard update. Lethal hits on a Punisher with 3 heavy bolters and a heavy stubber in rapid fire range? Heck, a chimera with two heavy bolters, heavy stubber, lasgun array and firing deck 2?

I've played four game with my guard since the update and its the masses of small arms fire thats getting the work done.

My hope is that it's free.

 PenitentJake wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:

Then there’s the fact that if everything wounds everything on a 6+ a 20 man blob of guardsmen with flashlights are now better at killing tanks than a 10 man unit of marines with bolters, just by sheer statistics and weight of fire.

No they aren't, because it takes 1/3 of the enemies resources to make the 20 guardsmen go away than the marines, by virtue of the Marines better wounds, toughness and saves. Blink, and the guard are dead. The Marines will stick around longer and be more of a pain in the ass. Also, the Marine's strats will affect their infantry, while the guard's strats will probably not.

It's been said a billion times, but the problem with unit to unit math hammer comparisons is that the game isn't actually played that way. There is no game situation where 10 marines will attack a tank without support or any of the random perks they're entitled to use in an attempt to kill it faster than 20 guardsmen can kill an an identical tank without using support or any of the random perks they're able to use, so I'm not sure there's much value in the comparison.

johnpjones1775 wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
I know I'm going to be in the minority here, but when it comes to Strats, I'd like there to be a total of about 6 generic, in-the-main-rules Strats, and perhaps 3-4 unique factions strats per army. Just a minor tone down.

Bruh I’m with you.
I’d prefer no strats to be honest. Just more rules to remember and gotcha moments if your opponent doesn’t have every strat you may have memorized.

Or you just open your dex to the two pages where all of your detachment rules including strats are located, and leave it in a place where your opponent can grab it, and your opponent does the same and nobody memorizes anything. Once you open the book to the right page, you'll never have to turn a page.

If you use cards (whether overpriced official GW or cheap as dirt homemade), it's even easier.

Only if you kill them first.
My typical 2k list has 70+ models with lasguns, that’s more than twice the total marine bodies I typically fit into a 2k list. I will have significantly more rounds going into targets for most of the game, meaning by sheer weight of numbers lasguns are likely to do more damage to a tank.

Dudeface wrote:
I see people longing for the old vehicle immunity to small arms, which typically are people who big up the HH ruleset.

Which turned dreads and armigers into monstrous creatures because the ruleset made them too frail or hard to balance. Vehicles are generally considered too fragile and AT spam is house ruled out.

So what do those stupid people who're house ruling out AT spam do when they play someone who has no qualms about bringing the armour?

Or are they the ones bringing the armor & trying to rig it in their favor?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
. . . AT spam is house ruled out.

Is that really a thing for Horus Heresy?

Not where I play.
And if someone were to seriously suggest it they'd be laughed out of the game.

ccs wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
I see people longing for the old vehicle immunity to small arms, which typically are people who big up the HH ruleset.

Which turned dreads and armigers into monstrous creatures because the ruleset made them too frail or hard to balance. Vehicles are generally considered too fragile and AT spam is house ruled out.

So what do those stupid people who're house ruling out AT spam do when they play someone who has no qualms about bringing the armour?

Or are they the ones bringing the armor & trying to rig it in their favor?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
. . . AT spam is house ruled out.

Is that really a thing for Horus Heresy?

Not where I play.
And if someone were to seriously suggest it they'd be laughed out of the game.

It's common to see lascannon support squads being capped.

Saying that dreads are near universally limited and house ruled, are you using those as well?

See, I like the idea of Dreadnaughts. A Cross between a very large Terminator and a Tank. It thematically fits into the idea of an infantry battle. It's when they get stupid with it (Looking at you IH Character protected Relic Leviathans of 8th)

But yeah, just simple and fun old Boxy boi with Rotary cannon and a big smacker fist.

I've played a bunch of 28mm company-level skirmish games where basic rifles can't damage tanks. Usually the way they prevent 'entire tank army wipes out all the AT and then gg' starts with not allowing a player to have an army composed entirely of tanks in a 28mm company-level infantry-focused skirmish game. They'll also typically feature mechanisms by which infantry can damage tanks that don't involve just blazing away with their rifles, and may even have a game structure that permits the not-all-tanks player to load up on AT after seeing what they're up against.

'Everything can wound everything' is a coping mechanism for a system that allows for extreme skew, does little to discourage it, and gives you no tools to deal with it. Treat the problem, not the symptoms.

 catbarf wrote:
I've played a bunch of 28mm company-level skirmish games where basic rifles can't damage tanks. Usually the way they prevent 'entire tank army wipes out all the AT and then gg' starts with not allowing a player to have an army composed entirely of tanks in a 28mm company-level infantry-focused skirmish game. They'll also typically feature mechanisms by which infantry can damage tanks that don't involve just blazing away with their rifles, and may even have a game structure that permits the not-all-tanks player to load up on AT after seeing what they're up against.

'Everything can wound everything' is a coping mechanism for a system that allows for extreme skew, does little to discourage it, and gives you no tools to deal with it. Treat the problem, not the symptoms.

So if I understand you correctly, you would advocate for a sort of Rule of 3 but for types of units?

So not just 12 different Lehman Russ, because they all have a different turret, but 3 tanks total. I would actually welcome that. It feels like a return to 8th where in order to get the benefits of say, a Regiment, you had to take several of each type of unit. Otherwise you were just a Battalion. I think that would be good.

The other thing I'd point out that if your list has zero AT, and your opponent rolls up with an all tanks list, do you really deserve to win? Thats why we diversify in the list making. We don't go all troops.

 catbarf wrote:
I've played a bunch of 28mm company-level skirmish games where basic rifles can't damage tanks. Usually the way they prevent 'entire tank army wipes out all the AT and then gg' starts with not allowing a player to have an army composed entirely of tanks in a 28mm company-level infantry-focused skirmish game. They'll also typically feature mechanisms by which infantry can damage tanks that don't involve just blazing away with their rifles, and may even have a game structure that permits the not-all-tanks player to load up on AT after seeing what they're up against.

'Everything can wound everything' is a coping mechanism for a system that allows for extreme skew, does little to discourage it, and gives you no tools to deal with it. Treat the problem, not the symptoms.

But is there really a problem any more? There's dozens of ways to balance out all vehicles as you say, but the context of the small arms thing is always baffling. People get super hung up on what is in practice a "wrfever nothing better to do" play. Nobody is running their knights away in fear of bolters etc.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
I've played a bunch of 28mm company-level skirmish games where basic rifles can't damage tanks. Usually the way they prevent 'entire tank army wipes out all the AT and then gg' starts with not allowing a player to have an army composed entirely of tanks in a 28mm company-level infantry-focused skirmish game. They'll also typically feature mechanisms by which infantry can damage tanks that don't involve just blazing away with their rifles, and may even have a game structure that permits the not-all-tanks player to load up on AT after seeing what they're up against.

'Everything can wound everything' is a coping mechanism for a system that allows for extreme skew, does little to discourage it, and gives you no tools to deal with it. Treat the problem, not the symptoms.

So if I understand you correctly, you would advocate for a sort of Rule of 3 but for types of units?

So not just 12 different Lehman Russ, because they all have a different turret, but 3 tanks total. I would actually welcome that. It feels like a return to 8th where in order to get the benefits of say, a Regiment, you had to take several of each type of unit. Otherwise you were just a Battalion. I think that would be good.

Some way of addressing skew would be a more ideal solution, yeah. The tricky part is finding a way of addressing skew that works. Especially if you do want to allow things like armored companies to exist. A relatively simple solution is probably just to have some hard and fast limitations for pickup games with things like armored companies requiring opponent permission. So you could totally play an armored company, but your opponent has to sign off and has a chance to bring some extra AT to compensate.

A probably-bad and probably-overcomplicated notion I've been kicking around is to have skew lists unlock new drawback mechanics your opponent can take advantage of. So for instance:
* Put more than X points into vehicles/monsters? You must mark the "front of such models with a straight line each time you move them. If your opponent is behind that line when they attack you, their attacks do +1 Damage as they aim for your weaker armor.

* Field more than X models? Your army is now subject to oldschool morale and has to fallback towards your board edge when fail battleshock or something.

Not going to fight to defend those specific ideas. They're just spitballs to illustrate the general concept. Basically, if your list goes so hard in a given direction that it creates a problem, unlock the mechanics that provide solutions to that problem.

The other thing I'd point out that if your list has zero AT, and your opponent rolls up with an all tanks list, do you really deserve to win? That's why we diversify in the list making. We don't go all troops.

That's fair, but I also don't think anyone in this thread is saying that lists with zero AT should perform well against armor. The more realistic scenario is that you brought moderate amount of AT, but not enough for your opponent's skew list especially when your opponent made a point of killing your AT early.

Dudeface wrote:
But is there really a problem any more? There's dozens of ways to balance out all vehicles as you say, but the context of the small arms thing is always baffling. People get super hung up on what is in practice a "wrfever nothing better to do" play. Nobody is running their knights away in fear of bolters etc.

My local meta has seen a lot of players leaning into skew-ish vehicle/monster-heavy builds. It hasn't been a problem in part because my low-strength weapons still contribute. Someone threw a norn at my howling banshees recently, and the girls actually managed to chip a respectable amount of damage off of her before dying. My opponent's helldrake is flying around with one or two wounds left? I can take pot shots with rangers or dire avengers to see if they finish the thing off without forcing me to use a precious bright lance.

I'd have to drop a lot of the fluffier units I've been fielding to compete in my local meta if my S4 weapons suddenly weren't allowed to contribute at all. Not because I'm leaning on them to do the bulk of the work, but because I need them to be able to do some work.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
That's fair, but I also don't think anyone in this thread is saying that lists with zero AT should perform well against armor. The more realistic scenario is that you brought moderate amount of AT, but not enough for your opponent's skew list especially when your opponent made a point of killing your AT early.

That, and also the game lacks organic AT. In older editions your infantry might have krak grenades, meltabombs, or a hidden powerfist that could one-shot a tank if you managed to get in close. In WW2 games you might have anti-tank grenades or satchel charges, or just cheap panzerfausts to spread across your squads. Unsupported armor should be afraid of close assault from infantry, not safe in the perfect knowledge that the enemy has nothing that can harm them.

It isn't just about balance, for that matter. Giving units more options for interacting with the opponent, more ways that positioning and employment can allow them to punch above their weight and make on-the-table decisions more important than listbuilding, is a good thing.

Part of the issue is that such options were and still are poorly distributed.

I have to admit I do miss the days where a full squad of Guardsmen with krak grenades might just worry a Rhino or Chimera a bit.

 Tyran wrote:
Part of the issue is that such options were and still are poorly distributed.

Agreed. But that seems like a good reason to spread more options around, more than anything else.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
That's fair, but I also don't think anyone in this thread is saying that lists with zero AT should perform well against armor. The more realistic scenario is that you brought moderate amount of AT, but not enough for your opponent's skew list especially when your opponent made a point of killing your AT early.

...someone using appropriate tactics/strategy to gain an advantage on the table is a problem now?