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.

 Dysartes wrote:

 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?

There is a difference between tactics like maneuvering and feinting, which require thought; and pointing your guns at their bodies with the vaguest bit of target selection.

^Only in the sense that one takes more thought. Otherwise it should be a perfectly legitimate tactic. It's the same as air superiority 101 in the real world, which is to remove opposing AA so your planes can fly about with impunity.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 catbarf wrote:

 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.

^Yeah, this. GW really lost ground on this one. If you're lucky you can (completely inorganically) pull a Meltabomb strat for one unit.

The funniest thing to me is, that to avoid skew you'd merely need to write a better core rule system. Crossfire from the GSC dex was a mechanic that should've been baseline in the game at the same time templates went the dodo which is hillarious on itself.

Some brought up HH and the fragility of tanks and overendurance of Dreads /automata. That is true but not for the core rules but rather the fact that some dreads are too cheap. Same with lascannons. However in regards to supression mechanics it does really well and enables a niche for artillery and certain weaponry and for a combined arms approach.
(friendly reminder the majority of them are actually not broken, realistically it's only the contemptor that is about 10-15% with a fist and a two shot multimelta underpriced in points and far too easily available with really convenient squad rules compared to vehicle squadrons which should've been inverted whilest automata are not too durable but rahter there's a wierd combination with an upgrade that should not be a flat cost over all types of automata for obvious reasons as biger meaner automata should not pay the same as small troop automata to become a masterpiece....)

There's multiple issues that tie in with f.e. all tank skew. Catbarf pointed it out, but there's more to it than just that. Infantry does with either system only benefit in a specific way from cover. In the past you got a flat cover save, that obviously favoured light and medium infantry with the armor system at the time. Then we had the +x to armor save which only benefitted heavy infantry which... you know terminators were supposed to be shocktroops to advance without cover?. In essence a cover system benefiting both light and heavy infantry by integrating both systems would work wonders and also finally give us a reason for cover ignoring weaponry, like nade launchers, flamers and indirect fire weaponry if there's no roof inbetween.

Infantry also can't dig in, smaller tables make both artillery and transports irrelevant and lower the value of deepstrikes, flanking and infiltration.
Moral / leadership were often lackluster implemented in 40k meanwhile 30k did a great job at it.

Then there's also the fact that GW don't do unit maths correctly for points on units but thats basically ontop of the lackluster corerule mechanics and only exemplifies problems with them by aligning or just outright beeing far too cheap / expensive.

JNAProductions wrote:

 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.

Yeah. The 7th edition and prior approach was basically to make it somewhat rare for a squad to actually be unable to hurt a vehicle. Any army that could swing at S4 in melee could shake a tank by charging it, and marines and some other armies generally had krak grenades available on top of that. The issue was just that some armies actually did struggle to hurt tanks with a lot of their units. And then to compensate, the units in those factions that were able to threaten tanks had to be so good at it that tanks just evaporated for them.

If you actually gave every unit in the game a tool to meaningfully hurt tanks, I wouldn't mind if you also made them immune to bolters or whatever. However, I do wonder if that's actually what proponents of bolter-immune tanks want given that that functionally makes vehicles less durable by virtue of having meaningful AT on every unit.

Dysartes wrote:

 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?

Don't get it twisted. The problem in that scenario isn't that someone made smart choices during the game. The issue is that the list creation process and game rules in that hypothetical scenario cause the smart choices to be so effective that it leads to a bad gaming experience.

 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.

I definitely miss wargear like Haywire Grenades, Melta Bombs etc.

Though at least now you can fall back from combat. Nothing worse than being locked in combat with a dreadnought that you can't touch.

 catbarf wrote:

 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.

There’s that word again ‘interaction’
It’s already been well established there’s no reliable and meaningful interaction between low S low AP weapons and tanks/monsters.

We have grenades in the form of a strat, marines have multiple units that have abilities that do mortal wounds on the charge, or simply for being in engagement range.

We still have ‘hidden’ powerfists or their equivalents in units.

But the bottom line is you have given a list of mechanics that can be used to allow any unit to threaten tanks and big monsters, without allowing a S3 lasgun to damage a land raider, GW just needs to implement them, or come up with their own new mechanics.

I think something to remember in this call to prevent low S from damaging tanks is to remember that in 5th-7th Ed, most tanks were vulnerable to melee attacks as low as S4 due to melee attacks always attacking a vehicle's rear armor (which was rarely more than 10 or 11). This meant most units were capable of damaging the vast majority to vehicles due to natural strength, assault grenades (4+d6 Armor Pentration), Krak Grenades (6+d6 AP) or Rending.

This means if you want to rule out low Strength Wound Rolls (3* S=< T) then you also need to come up with rules to cover the melee impact of low Strength units on Vehicles.

I feel like people should have to specify if they've actually played 10th for more than 2 games.

 RaptorusRex wrote:
I feel like people should have to specify if they've actually played 10th for more than 2 games.

forum signatures are useful for many things

johnpjones1775 wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

 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.

There’s that word again ‘interaction’
It’s already been well established there’s no reliable and meaningful interaction between low S low AP weapons and tanks/monsters.

We have grenades in the form of a strat, marines have multiple units that have abilities that do mortal wounds on the charge, or simply for being in engagement range.

We still have ‘hidden’ powerfists or their equivalents in units.

But the bottom line is you have given a list of mechanics that can be used to allow any unit to threaten tanks and big monsters, without allowing a S3 lasgun to damage a land raider, GW just needs to implement them, or come up with their own new mechanics.

The type of interaction is key. Spraying and praying with low S weapons in the hopes of chipping off a wound is not something that's logical for your trained, often elite troops, to be doing. But flanking or closing in on a vehicle in order to plant a bunch of AT grenades on it, resulting in a satisfying smoking wreck, is a mechanic that rewards movement and aggression, and is something that you want to see from elite, well equpped troops.

Grenades as strat is garbage, because you can only use it once in a turn. I played many a game in earlier editions where the move was to get lots of models in amongst opposing vehicles, and run amok threatening to blow them all up with the grenades that every model is equipped with.

"Interaction" isn't enough, the style and feel of it matters.

 Insectum7 wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

 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.

There’s that word again ‘interaction’
It’s already been well established there’s no reliable and meaningful interaction between low S low AP weapons and tanks/monsters.

We have grenades in the form of a strat, marines have multiple units that have abilities that do mortal wounds on the charge, or simply for being in engagement range.

We still have ‘hidden’ powerfists or their equivalents in units.

But the bottom line is you have given a list of mechanics that can be used to allow any unit to threaten tanks and big monsters, without allowing a S3 lasgun to damage a land raider, GW just needs to implement them, or come up with their own new mechanics.

The type of interaction is key. Spraying and praying with low S weapons in the hopes of chipping off a wound is not something that's logical for your trained, often elite troops, to be doing. But flanking or closing in on a vehicle in order to plant a bunch of AT grenades on it, resulting in a satisfying smoking wreck, is a mechanic that rewards movement and aggression, and is something that you want to see from elite, well equpped troops.

Grenades as strat is garbage, because you can only use it once in a turn. I played many a game in earlier editions where the move was to get lots of models in amongst opposing vehicles, and run amok threatening to blow them all up with the grenades that every model is equipped with.

"Interaction" isn't enough, the style and feel of it matters.

I agree completely agree with you.
There are plenty of potential mechanics that could actually make regular infantry models more of a real threat to tanks while barring their puny weapons from hurting said tanks.
I feel like 40K has become more like overwatch, 3 routes to an objective and both teams just go at each other head on.
I’d rather it feel more like battlefield, or apex where positioning, movement, and area denial actually matters.

 Insectum7 wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

 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.

There’s that word again ‘interaction’
It’s already been well established there’s no reliable and meaningful interaction between low S low AP weapons and tanks/monsters.

We have grenades in the form of a strat, marines have multiple units that have abilities that do mortal wounds on the charge, or simply for being in engagement range.

We still have ‘hidden’ powerfists or their equivalents in units.

But the bottom line is you have given a list of mechanics that can be used to allow any unit to threaten tanks and big monsters, without allowing a S3 lasgun to damage a land raider, GW just needs to implement them, or come up with their own new mechanics.

The type of interaction is key. Spraying and praying with low S weapons in the hopes of chipping off a wound is not something that's logical for your trained, often elite troops, to be doing. But flanking or closing in on a vehicle in order to plant a bunch of AT grenades on it, resulting in a satisfying smoking wreck, is a mechanic that rewards movement and aggression, and is something that you want to see from elite, well equpped troops.

Grenades as strat is garbage, because you can only use it once in a turn. I played many a game in earlier editions where the move was to get lots of models in amongst opposing vehicles, and run amok threatening to blow them all up with the grenades that every model is equipped with.

"Interaction" isn't enough, the style and feel of it matters.

For johnpjones there is an obvious contradiction there:

It’s already been well established there’s no reliable and meaningful interaction between low S low AP weapons and tanks/monsters

Means that this is largely a moot point:

But the bottom line is you have given a list of mechanics that can be used to allow any unit to threaten tanks and big monsters, without allowing a S3 lasgun to damage a land raider, GW just needs to implement them, or come up with their own new mechanics.

If the small arms are not a meaningful interaction, there's no harm in it existing surely?

In response to Insectum, to flip that around it makes sense for trained soldiers to target their lasguns at lenses, view ports, fuel pipes, damaged sections in the armour etc. but it doesn't make sense for a bunch of guys to punch an ATV to death with their bare hands.

Couldn't attacks from short range 0-6" stack in some way? Lets say every 2-3 models add 1 to the strenght and D of a squad basic weapon. This way a squad of 10 dudes could in could hit a tank at strenght 8 D5, because hiting that view port maybe hard, but when it does happen it stings. It would also mean that no monster or vehicle would want to get shot by a unit of 20 anything.


Infantry protection wise, why not make cover infantry only? And if someone REALLY wants to mimic how dense terrain fighting, then infantry in cover closer then 12" to a vehicle/monster could get double cover. This would both entice the use of infantry to suppose tanks/monsters, but also highlight how good a flamer (which ignores that double cover) is for a tank.

For melee vs vehicles (but not monsters), there could be some mechanic that lets infantry which outnumbers(more wounds) a vehicle do easier/extra damage. Big tanks would still have to worry about hordes swarming them, but a group of 5 dudes in loincloths would maybe scratch a Lemman Russ. Unless of course the Lemman Russ is on its last 4 or less wounds, then with all the damage and holes in it even 5 kroot can blow it up.

Huge stuff like titans, knights etc (maybe some special trait to stuff like baneblade size stuff) would either have the tens of wounds to not worry, or have some "Left wounds count double for being swarmed" rule.

Dudeface wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

 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.

There’s that word again ‘interaction’
It’s already been well established there’s no reliable and meaningful interaction between low S low AP weapons and tanks/monsters.

We have grenades in the form of a strat, marines have multiple units that have abilities that do mortal wounds on the charge, or simply for being in engagement range.

We still have ‘hidden’ powerfists or their equivalents in units.

But the bottom line is you have given a list of mechanics that can be used to allow any unit to threaten tanks and big monsters, without allowing a S3 lasgun to damage a land raider, GW just needs to implement them, or come up with their own new mechanics.

The type of interaction is key. Spraying and praying with low S weapons in the hopes of chipping off a wound is not something that's logical for your trained, often elite troops, to be doing. But flanking or closing in on a vehicle in order to plant a bunch of AT grenades on it, resulting in a satisfying smoking wreck, is a mechanic that rewards movement and aggression, and is something that you want to see from elite, well equpped troops.

Grenades as strat is garbage, because you can only use it once in a turn. I played many a game in earlier editions where the move was to get lots of models in amongst opposing vehicles, and run amok threatening to blow them all up with the grenades that every model is equipped with.

"Interaction" isn't enough, the style and feel of it matters.

For johnpjones there is an obvious contradiction there:

It’s already been well established there’s no reliable and meaningful interaction between low S low AP weapons and tanks/monsters

Means that this is largely a moot point:

But the bottom line is you have given a list of mechanics that can be used to allow any unit to threaten tanks and big monsters, without allowing a S3 lasgun to damage a land raider, GW just needs to implement them, or come up with their own new mechanics.

If the small arms are not a meaningful interaction, there's no harm in it existing surely?

In response to Insectum, to flip that around it makes sense for trained soldiers to target their lasguns at lenses, view ports, fuel pipes, damaged sections in the armour etc. but it doesn't make sense for a bunch of guys to punch an ATV to death with their bare hands.

The harm is in when they do do damage.
I killed a repulsor with a lasgun. That shouldn’t have been possible sat all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:
Couldn't attacks from short range 0-6" stack in some way? Lets say every 2-3 models add 1 to the strenght and D of a squad basic weapon. This way a squad of 10 dudes could in could hit a tank at strenght 8 D5, because hiting that view port maybe hard, but when it does happen it stings. It would also mean that no monster or vehicle would want to get shot by a unit of 20 anything.


Infantry protection wise, why not make cover infantry only? And if someone REALLY wants to mimic how dense terrain fighting, then infantry in cover closer then 12" to a vehicle/monster could get double cover. This would both entice the use of infantry to suppose tanks/monsters, but also highlight how good a flamer (which ignores that double cover) is for a tank.

For melee vs vehicles (but not monsters), there could be some mechanic that lets infantry which outnumbers(more wounds) a vehicle do easier/extra damage. Big tanks would still have to worry about hordes swarming them, but a group of 5 dudes in loincloths would maybe scratch a Lemman Russ. Unless of course the Lemman Russ is on its last 4 or less wounds, then with all the damage and holes in it even 5 kroot can blow it up.

Huge stuff like titans, knights etc (maybe some special trait to stuff like baneblade size stuff) would either have the tens of wounds to not worry, or have some "Left wounds count double for being swarmed" rule.

im so tired of the ‘view port’ excuse for letting weak weapons damage tanks. Those view ports use armored glass or in40k likely some other bullet/lasgun resistant material

im so tired of the ‘view port’ excuse for letting weak weapons damage tanks. Those view ports use armored glass or in40k likely some other bullet/lasgun resistant material

Okey you throw your over charged lasgun pack under the grav engine/tracks etc. And by the way marine lore has example of bolter fire cracking view ports of both imperial and non imperial vehicles.

I know it would be adding more dice rolls but having to roll a "Cover" save before (in addition to, not instead of) an armor save would be a little more realistic.

That chain-link fence might only grant a 6+ Cover Save, but that's still a small chance the fence deflects or absorbs damage before it gets to your troops.

There is a difference between "I killed a Repulsor with a lasgun" and "I killed a Repulsor with a lasgun after I removed 15 of its 16 wounds with lascannons".

A Repulsor that just took 3-4 unsaved lascannon wounds is a Repulsor with a severely compromised armor plating because lascannons are going to leave holes.

 alextroy wrote:
I think something to remember in this call to prevent low S from damaging tanks is to remember that in 5th-7th Ed,

Another thing to remember is that 5th was a very different game from 6th and 7th as far as vehicle durability was concerned because of hull points.

It was borderline impossible to destroy a vehicle with glancing hits in 5th, while in 6-7th 3 glances would wreck most vehicles.

johnpjones1775 wrote:

I killed a repulsor with a lasgun. That shouldn’t have been possible sat all.

I think what you mean is either you damaged the vehicle severely with a real weapon, to the point where a lasgun struck the killing blow

OR

You took out a repulsor with hundreds of shots from a few squads worth of lasguns using Orders to fire in volleys.

I can almost guarantee that you did not kill a tank with A lasgun.

I apologize for being a dick if English isn't your first language, or if you're posting from a phone and trying to be brief to avoid the inconvenience of writing clearly.

alextroy wrote:I think something to remember in this call to prevent low S from damaging tanks is to remember that in 5th-7th Ed, most tanks were vulnerable to melee attacks as low as S4 due to melee attacks always attacking a vehicle's rear armor (which was rarely more than 10 or 11). This meant most units were capable of damaging the vast majority to vehicles due to natural strength, assault grenades (4+d6 Armor Pentration), Krak Grenades (6+d6 AP) or Rending.

This means if you want to rule out low Strength Wound Rolls (3* S=< T) then you also need to come up with rules to cover the melee impact of low Strength units on Vehicles.

johnpjones1775 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

 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.

There’s that word again ‘interaction’
It’s already been well established there’s no reliable and meaningful interaction between low S low AP weapons and tanks/monsters.

We have grenades in the form of a strat, marines have multiple units that have abilities that do mortal wounds on the charge, or simply for being in engagement range.

We still have ‘hidden’ powerfists or their equivalents in units.

But the bottom line is you have given a list of mechanics that can be used to allow any unit to threaten tanks and big monsters, without allowing a S3 lasgun to damage a land raider, GW just needs to implement them, or come up with their own new mechanics.

The type of interaction is key. Spraying and praying with low S weapons in the hopes of chipping off a wound is not something that's logical for your trained, often elite troops, to be doing. But flanking or closing in on a vehicle in order to plant a bunch of AT grenades on it, resulting in a satisfying smoking wreck, is a mechanic that rewards movement and aggression, and is something that you want to see from elite, well equpped troops.

Grenades as strat is garbage, because you can only use it once in a turn. I played many a game in earlier editions where the move was to get lots of models in amongst opposing vehicles, and run amok threatening to blow them all up with the grenades that every model is equipped with.

"Interaction" isn't enough, the style and feel of it matters.

I agree completely agree with you.
There are plenty of potential mechanics that could actually make regular infantry models more of a real threat to tanks while barring their puny weapons from hurting said tanks.
I feel like 40K has become more like overwatch, 3 routes to an objective and both teams just go at each other head on.
I’d rather it feel more like battlefield, or apex where positioning, movement, and area denial actually matters.

I'd be fine with making vehicles immune to small arms if every unit in the game had some other means of hurting them. We can frame it as grenades instead of rifles or what have you. The important thing to me is just that every unit in your army be allowed to participate meaningfully against vehicles so that skew lists don't invalidate half of your codex.

So to clarify, we're all on board with vehicles functionally being less survivable as a result of anti-tank measures being built into all or most units' kits?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lord Clinto wrote:
I know it would be adding more dice rolls but having to roll a "Cover" save before (in addition to, not instead of) an armor save would be a little more realistic.

That chain-link fence might only grant a 6+ Cover Save, but that's still a small chance the fence deflects or absorbs damage before it gets to your troops.

I think it would be tricky to do this in a satisfying way. If most cover is providing essentially a 6+ FNP (not quite the same, but you get the idea), then it's mostly going to be a lot of annoying little rolls that usually don't matter. I remember doing this with dark eldar in past editions, and while the impact of the 6+ was significant enough to always roll it, it was kind of more annoying than satisfying.

But if you make those cover saves better, 5+ or even 4+, then units get really durable really fast. A space marine currently takes how many lasgun shots to kill? Now imagine he's ignoring half of those wounds thanks to being in cover. This, in turn, makes me think that various mechanics to improve or diminish cover would get out of hand fast. Or the designers make a point of not including such mechanics at all, which would kind of be a shame because I like stuff like vypers turning off cover, venomthropes granting cover, etc.

Plus the extra dice rolling step might feel a little silly given how many dice rolling steps are already involved in the attack process.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

 Lord Clinto wrote:
I know it would be adding more dice rolls but having to roll a "Cover" save before (in addition to, not instead of) an armor save would be a little more realistic.

That chain-link fence might only grant a 6+ Cover Save, but that's still a small chance the fence deflects or absorbs damage before it gets to your troops.

I think it would be tricky to do this in a satisfying way. If most cover is providing essentially a 6+ FNP (not quite the same, but you get the idea), then it's mostly going to be a lot of annoying little rolls that usually don't matter. I remember doing this with dark eldar in past editions, and while the impact of the 6+ was significant enough to always roll it, it was kind of more annoying than satisfying.

But if you make those cover saves better, 5+ or even 4+, then units get really durable really fast. A space marine currently takes how many lasgun shots to kill? Now imagine he's ignoring half of those wounds thanks to being in cover. This, in turn, makes me think that various mechanics to improve or diminish cover would get out of hand fast. Or the designers make a point of not including such mechanics at all, which would kind of be a shame because I like stuff like vypers turning off cover, venomthropes granting cover, etc.

Plus the extra dice rolling step might feel a little silly given how many dice rolling steps are already involved in the attack process.

earlier in the thread, or maybe in a similar rules thread, someone else pointed out that rolling wounds immediately after hits is what works best from a playing perspective. with hits > wounds > saves being the loop, you can simply pick up all your hits and roll them right away, as opposed to rolling hits, waiting for your opponent, setting some dice aside, then rolling wounds. gameplay is not solely about the narrative aspect. concessions need to be made for playability. this is true for all kinds of wargames to some degree or another, but a game like 40k that has a tenuous relationship at best with reality really does not need to be rewriting its rules to be more realistic. focus on what makes a good game (i don't think this would)

 StudentOfEtherium wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:

 Lord Clinto wrote:
I know it would be adding more dice rolls but having to roll a "Cover" save before (in addition to, not instead of) an armor save would be a little more realistic.

That chain-link fence might only grant a 6+ Cover Save, but that's still a small chance the fence deflects or absorbs damage before it gets to your troops.

I think it would be tricky to do this in a satisfying way. If most cover is providing essentially a 6+ FNP (not quite the same, but you get the idea), then it's mostly going to be a lot of annoying little rolls that usually don't matter. I remember doing this with dark eldar in past editions, and while the impact of the 6+ was significant enough to always roll it, it was kind of more annoying than satisfying.

But if you make those cover saves better, 5+ or even 4+, then units get really durable really fast. A space marine currently takes how many lasgun shots to kill? Now imagine he's ignoring half of those wounds thanks to being in cover. This, in turn, makes me think that various mechanics to improve or diminish cover would get out of hand fast. Or the designers make a point of not including such mechanics at all, which would kind of be a shame because I like stuff like vypers turning off cover, venomthropes granting cover, etc.

Plus the extra dice rolling step might feel a little silly given how many dice rolling steps are already involved in the attack process.

earlier in the thread, or maybe in a similar rules thread, someone else pointed out that rolling wounds immediately after hits is what works best from a playing perspective. with hits > wounds > saves being the loop, you can simply pick up all your hits and roll them right away, as opposed to rolling hits, waiting for your opponent, setting some dice aside, then rolling wounds. gameplay is not solely about the narrative aspect. concessions need to be made for playability. this is true for all kinds of wargames to some degree or another, but a game like 40k that has a tenuous relationship at best with reality really does not need to be rewriting its rules to be more realistic. focus on what makes a good game (i don't think this would)

That someone was me, but I'm not sure how it relates to these posts specifically. Clinto was pitching changing covoer from an armor save bonus to being an additional step in the attack resolution process. It doesn't really matter whether you do that roll before or after armor saves as either way the same player is just scoop up successes. Similar to how the attacker can scoop up successful hits to roll wounds. Clinto isn't suggesting we put the new armor save pool between to-hit and to-wound or anything like that.

oh, i may have misread their suggestion. i thought they were saying it should come before the wound roll, not the armour save

Karol wrote:

im so tired of the ‘view port’ excuse for letting weak weapons damage tanks. Those view ports use armored glass or in40k likely some other bullet/lasgun resistant material

Okey you throw your over charged lasgun pack under the grav engine/tracks etc. And by the way marine lore has example of bolter fire cracking view ports of both imperial and non imperial vehicles.

cracking a view port isn’t remotely enough to count as wounding the vehicle.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 PenitentJake wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:

I killed a repulsor with a lasgun. That shouldn’t have been possible sat all.

I think what you mean is either you damaged the vehicle severely with a real weapon, to the point where a lasgun struck the killing blow

OR

You took out a repulsor with hundreds of shots from a few squads worth of lasguns using Orders to fire in volleys.

I can almost guarantee that you did not kill a tank with A lasgun.

I apologize for being a dick if English isn't your first language, or if you're posting from a phone and trying to be brief to avoid the inconvenience of writing clearly.

lasgun is what killed the tank. It doesn’t matter what other weapons were used before that, it shouldn’t have been able to happen and likely had a massive effect on the rest of the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tyran wrote:
There is a difference between "I killed a Repulsor with a lasgun" and "I killed a Repulsor with a lasgun after I removed 15 of its 16 wounds with lascannons".

A Repulsor that just took 3-4 unsaved lascannon wounds is a Repulsor with a severely compromised armor plating because lascannons are going to leave holes.

 alextroy wrote:
I think something to remember in this call to prevent low S from damaging tanks is to remember that in 5th-7th Ed,

Another thing to remember is that 5th was a very different game from 6th and 7th as far as vehicle durability was concerned because of hull points.

It was borderline impossible to destroy a vehicle with glancing hits in 5th, while in 6-7th 3 glances would wreck most vehicles.

no there’s no difference because no matter how you twist it, a lasgun is what killed the repulsor.

A lasgun and a bunch of lascannons.

You cannot ignore the lascannons that made it possible in the first place.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

alextroy wrote:I think something to remember in this call to prevent low S from damaging tanks is to remember that in 5th-7th Ed, most tanks were vulnerable to melee attacks as low as S4 due to melee attacks always attacking a vehicle's rear armor (which was rarely more than 10 or 11). This meant most units were capable of damaging the vast majority to vehicles due to natural strength, assault grenades (4+d6 Armor Pentration), Krak Grenades (6+d6 AP) or Rending.

This means if you want to rule out low Strength Wound Rolls (3* S=< T) then you also need to come up with rules to cover the melee impact of low Strength units on Vehicles.

johnpjones1775 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

 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.

There’s that word again ‘interaction’
It’s already been well established there’s no reliable and meaningful interaction between low S low AP weapons and tanks/monsters.

We have grenades in the form of a strat, marines have multiple units that have abilities that do mortal wounds on the charge, or simply for being in engagement range.

We still have ‘hidden’ powerfists or their equivalents in units.

But the bottom line is you have given a list of mechanics that can be used to allow any unit to threaten tanks and big monsters, without allowing a S3 lasgun to damage a land raider, GW just needs to implement them, or come up with their own new mechanics.

The type of interaction is key. Spraying and praying with low S weapons in the hopes of chipping off a wound is not something that's logical for your trained, often elite troops, to be doing. But flanking or closing in on a vehicle in order to plant a bunch of AT grenades on it, resulting in a satisfying smoking wreck, is a mechanic that rewards movement and aggression, and is something that you want to see from elite, well equpped troops.

Grenades as strat is garbage, because you can only use it once in a turn. I played many a game in earlier editions where the move was to get lots of models in amongst opposing vehicles, and run amok threatening to blow them all up with the grenades that every model is equipped with.

"Interaction" isn't enough, the style and feel of it matters.

I agree completely agree with you.
There are plenty of potential mechanics that could actually make regular infantry models more of a real threat to tanks while barring their puny weapons from hurting said tanks.
I feel like 40K has become more like overwatch, 3 routes to an objective and both teams just go at each other head on.
I’d rather it feel more like battlefield, or apex where positioning, movement, and area denial actually matters.

I'd be fine with making vehicles immune to small arms if every unit in the game had some other means of hurting them. We can frame it as grenades instead of rifles or what have you. The important thing to me is just that every unit in your army be allowed to participate meaningfully against vehicles so that skew lists don't invalidate half of your codex.

So to clarify, we're all on board with vehicles functionally being less survivable as a result of anti-tank measures being built into all or most units' kits?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lord Clinto wrote:
I know it would be adding more dice rolls but having to roll a "Cover" save before (in addition to, not instead of) an armor save would be a little more realistic.

That chain-link fence might only grant a 6+ Cover Save, but that's still a small chance the fence deflects or absorbs damage before it gets to your troops.

I think it would be tricky to do this in a satisfying way. If most cover is providing essentially a 6+ FNP (not quite the same, but you get the idea), then it's mostly going to be a lot of annoying little rolls that usually don't matter. I remember doing this with dark eldar in past editions, and while the impact of the 6+ was significant enough to always roll it, it was kind of more annoying than satisfying.

But if you make those cover saves better, 5+ or even 4+, then units get really durable really fast. A space marine currently takes how many lasgun shots to kill? Now imagine he's ignoring half of those wounds thanks to being in cover. This, in turn, makes me think that various mechanics to improve or diminish cover would get out of hand fast. Or the designers make a point of not including such mechanics at all, which would kind of be a shame because I like stuff like vypers turning off cover, venomthropes granting cover, etc.

Plus the extra dice rolling step might feel a little silly given how many dice rolling steps are already involved in the attack process.

I mean I don’t think it would make much of a difference if every squad had krak grenades or elite units had melta bombs or their equivalents if the range was 6”, but it gives everyone an opportunity for a meaningful interaction.
A krak grenade could have a profile like S10 AP-2 D3 and a melta bomb could be S12 AP-3 D2 <melta2>

johnpjones1775 wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tyran wrote:
There is a difference between "I killed a Repulsor with a lasgun" and "I killed a Repulsor with a lasgun after I removed 15 of its 16 wounds with lascannons".

A Repulsor that just took 3-4 unsaved lascannon wounds is a Repulsor with a severely compromised armor plating because lascannons are going to leave holes.

 alextroy wrote:
I think something to remember in this call to prevent low S from damaging tanks is to remember that in 5th-7th Ed,

Another thing to remember is that 5th was a very different game from 6th and 7th as far as vehicle durability was concerned because of hull points.

It was borderline impossible to destroy a vehicle with glancing hits in 5th, while in 6-7th 3 glances would wreck most vehicles.

no there’s no difference because no matter how you twist it, a lasgun is what killed the repulsor.

Eh. I think a lasgun finishing off a repulsor is as viable as you're willing to let it be. A vehicle down to its last wound can be interpreted as being in extremely rough shape. Holes gouged out of the hull. Volatile fluids spilling out damaged tubes. Electronics sparking. I don't think it's unreasonable to interpret that as the lasgun bolt going through a hole in the side and igniting the chemicals spilled all over the floor, thus cooking the crew inside. Or that the bolt found an already damaged part of the anti-grav track and caused the vehicle to careen and roll onto its side. Or that the shot hit an exposed cogitator or power line and just rendered the controls unresponsive.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

I mean I don’t think it would make much of a difference if every squad had krak grenades or elite units had melta bombs or their equivalents if the range was 6”, but it gives everyone an opportunity for a meaningful interaction.
A krak grenade could have a profile like S10 AP-2 D3 and a melta bomb could be S12 AP-3 D2 <melta2>

Each of my msu aspect warrior squads killing 40% of a rhino each turn instead of doing nothing at all is a pretty big difference.

Although it would probably be best to have whatever anti-tank measures you give units scale up based on unit size.

 Tyran wrote:
A lasgun and a bunch of lascannons.

You cannot ignore the lascannons that made it possible in the first place.

no one is ignoring anything. A lasgun should not be able to kill a repulsor period.

Again y’all claim ya want to have every unit be able to interact with every other unit, but then say that half the interactions are effectively meaningless to justify keeping a stupid mechanic, then you try to down play how meaningful those interactions can be when a real world example of such mechanics being able to change the whole flow of the game.

johnpjones1775 wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
A lasgun and a bunch of lascannons.

You cannot ignore the lascannons that made it possible in the first place.

no one is ignoring anything. A lasgun should not be able to kill a repulsor period.

This is such a stupid take, i'm sorry but the lasgun didn't kill that repulsor

johnpjones1775 wrote:

Again y’all claim ya want to have every unit be able to interact with every other unit, but then say that half the interactions are effectively meaningless to justify keeping a stupid mechanic, then you try to down play how meaningful those interactions can be when a real world example of such mechanics being able to change the whole flow of the game.

Guess what? You can simply choose not to shoot the lasguns at the big tanks, and most of the time it's correct because you're dumping the big anti-tank guns into it first to blow it up anyway.

a lasgun has like 3% chance of dealing actual damage to a tank....

The thing is that while I agree that lasguns alone shouldn't be able to kill a fully intact Repulsor, a lucky lasgun managing to finish off the last wound of a Repulsor provides a highly "cinematic" fun moment.

If nothing else there is a considerable difference regarding vibes when that wound is removed by a very lucky lasgun.

And if we are bringing "real world examples", tanks should outright die to penetrating/wounding hits from AT weaponry and lascannons should be Damage 3D6 or some nonsense to reflect that (or alternatively halve everyone's wound count).

Real world tank warfare is absurdly lethal* to the point it makes a very poor game, which is why pretty much every game depiction of tanks has unrealistically inflated their survivality.

*Which is also why modern tanks come with countless reactive defense systems as passive armor alone is insufficient.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
A lasgun and a bunch of lascannons.

You cannot ignore the lascannons that made it possible in the first place.

no one is ignoring anything. A lasgun should not be able to kill a repulsor period.

Again y’all claim ya want to have every unit be able to interact with every other unit, but then say that half the interactions are effectively meaningless to justify keeping a stupid mechanic, then you try to down play how meaningful those interactions can be when a real world example of such mechanics being able to change the whole flow of the game.

This is such a stupid take, i'm sorry but the lasgun didn't kill that repulsor

If the lasgun did the last wound, then yeah it did kill it.

I agree with johnjones that there's a pretty impressive contradiction here. The stated desire to avoid skew while simultaneously claiming the ineffectiveness of small arms is pretty funny to see.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tyran wrote:
The thing is that while I agree that lasguns alone shouldn't be able to kill a fully intact Repulsor, a lucky lasgun managing to finish off the last wound of a Repulsor provides a highly "cinematic" fun moment.

Agree to disagree.