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 apologize if I've missed it, but has anyone posted examples of this happening in the lore, rather than just thought experiments?
I've read a decent amount of 40K fiction at this point, and I can't think of any examples of characters going full cyclic with lasguns to knock out optics on Land Raiders or finish off a Leman Russ already damaged from a meltagun or whatever.
Those explanations strike me as an attempt to rationalize an unintuitive mechanic, rather than something that actually reflects the setting.
Isn't 40k fiction like super lethal against tanks? as in single lascannon hits reliably blowing up Leman Russes.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2024/07/16 18:14:40
Ok, lets turn this on it's head. 1 Tank fires a it's tank round at a squad of Infantry. We'll keep with the guard scenario and say it's a Vanquisher Vs 10 Guardsman. If they are all bunched together, how in logic's sake, does it only kill 1? Keep in mind they aren't scattered. They are in coherency. So Hunched up.
If the lasgun can chip a wound off the tank, surely the anti-tank cannon Could kill more than 1 guardsman?
This is what it comes down to. Everyone wants their weak infantry to be able to kill titans, because of Realism, but no one wants their squads getting wiped off the table by a tank designed to kill other tanks, in a single shot.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Ok, lets turn this on it's head. 1 Tank fires a it's tank round at a squad of Infantry. We'll keep with the guard scenario and say it's a Vanquisher Vs 10 Guardsman. If they are all bunched together, how in logic's sake, does it only kill 1? Keep in mind they aren't scattered. They are in coherency. So Hunched up.
If the lasgun can chip a wound off the tank, surely the anti-tank cannon Could kill more than 1 guardsman?
This is what it comes down to. Everyone wants their weak infantry to be able to kill titans, because of Realism, but no one wants their squads getting wiped off the table by a tank designed to kill other tanks, in a single shot.
Realistically you would have a very hard time hitting a human sized target with a Vanquisher round, which IIRC is supposed to be a APFSDS round and thus has no explosives and relies on pure kinetic energy.
So realistically you would has just wasted expensive ammo and you will get executed by your commissar for crippling stupidity and wastefulness of valuable weaponry.
I apologize if I've missed it, but has anyone posted examples of this happening in the lore, rather than just thought experiments?
I've read a decent amount of 40K fiction at this point, and I can't think of any examples of characters going full cyclic with lasguns to knock out optics on Land Raiders or finish off a Leman Russ already damaged from a meltagun or whatever.
Those explanations strike me as an attempt to rationalize an unintuitive mechanic, rather than something that actually reflects the setting.
Isn't 40k fiction like super lethal against tanks? as in single lascannon hits reliably blowing up Leman Russes.
It wasn't so long ago that a single lascannon could blow up a landraider on the table too!
@Catbarf: I'm struggling to think of a good example from a BL novel. It's more of a thought experiment, and calling it an attempt to rationalize an unintuitive mechanic is probably fair.
That said, we do have plenty of lore about how lasguns will eventually chip away at things like power armor enough to eventually do meaningful damage to a marine. Which isn't a great argument for being able to chip away at vehicles, but is a testament to lasguns packing a fair bit of punch despite their reputation. And we have things like space wolves synchronizing their fire to take down eldar titans with bolters. So with those nuggets of lore in mind, it seems reasonable to me that a tank with its armor torn open and its guts exposed by anti-tank weapons would be susceptible to additional damage from smaller arms fire.
We also have lore examples of units scrabbling on top of active tanks to wedge grenades in the important bits, wrench open hatches, etc. Which wouldn't be represented by just blanket immunity to small arms attacks.
ATTENTION. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Ok, lets turn this on it's head. 1 Tank fires a it's tank round at a squad of Infantry. We'll keep with the guard scenario and say it's a Vanquisher Vs 10 Guardsman. If they are all bunched together, how in logic's sake, does it only kill 1? Keep in mind they aren't scattered. They are in coherency. So Hunched up.
If the lasgun can chip a wound off the tank, surely the anti-tank cannon Could kill more than 1 guardsman?
This is what it comes down to. Everyone wants their weak infantry to be able to kill titans, because of Realism, but no one wants their squads getting wiped off the table by a tank designed to kill other tanks, in a single shot.
I'm not familiar with the vanquisher lore. Is it an artillery shell that explodes on impact? If so, I imagine that weapon has the blast rule and/or an Attacks stat greater than 1. Or are you arguing for like, a Dead Pool Maximum Effort mechanic where single bullets are going through multiple dudes? In which case, feel free to make the case for vanquishers getting the Sustained Hits rule if you feel like this is a common enough occurrence to warrant mechanical representation.
But also, it's worth acknowledging that a tank is generally allowed to interact with infantry. People probably wouldn't love it if I suggested lascannons not be allowed to shoot at infantry because "realistically" you're only killing like one guy at a time, and that's not worth the dice rolls, right? Enemy squad of termagaunts is down to two models, and you just need some lucky lascannon sponson shots to finish them off? Well, those gaunts are a horde unit, and your sponsons are anti-tank weapons. Hordes should really be immune to anti-tank fire, so let's add a rule saying your lascannons can't target them.
That's an issue with only using a quarter of an army list written for Fantasy, rather than the core mechanics of 40K...
It's an extreme example, but it's fair to point out that some armies have less access to AT than others. My Thousand Sons mostly kill vehicles with bolter and flamer shenanigans. Special magic bolters and flamers, but still.
But again, the discussion thus far has mostly been about skew lists facing lists with a moderate-but-insufficient amount of AT and how putting more pressure on a lists AT means reducing list diversity to compensate.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2024/07/16 18:34:43
ATTENTION. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
That's an issue with only using a quarter of an army list written for Fantasy, rather than the core mechanics of 40K...
Yeah. . . Little sympathy there.
The alternative is to just implement specialized mechanics, such as ye-olde Haywire grenades, or Necron Scarabs, to compensate. Totally acceptable solutions, imo.
I apologize if I've missed it, but has anyone posted examples of this happening in the lore, rather than just thought experiments?
I've read a decent amount of 40K fiction at this point, and I can't think of any examples of characters going full cyclic with lasguns to knock out optics on Land Raiders or finish off a Leman Russ already damaged from a meltagun or whatever.
Those explanations strike me as an attempt to rationalize an unintuitive mechanic, rather than something that actually reflects the setting.
Isn't 40k fiction like super lethal against tanks? as in single lascannon hits reliably blowing up Leman Russes.
That's quite a deflection. But as already posted, it was quite possible for a single Lascannon to destroy a tank in earlier editions.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2024/07/16 18:44:15
That's an issue with only using a quarter of an army list written for Fantasy, rather than the core mechanics of 40K...
Yeah. . . Little sympathy there.
The alternative is to just implement specialized mechanics, such as ye-olde Haywire grenades, or Necron Scarabs, to compensate. Totally acceptable solutions, imo.
So, Nurgle Daemons, who can outnumber every single Marine currently in the galaxy with a single planet worth of them, don't deserve to be their own army?
Marines still have ten subfactions plus an entire extra Codec... But Nurgle Daemons, who are massively more distinct from each other type of Daemon than any given chapter is from Dark Angels, don't deserve to be a viable army?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2024/07/16 18:53:45
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
Wyldhunt wrote: If the former, what about the examples provided for how a lasbolt could do major damage to an already damaged vehicle?
I apologize if I've missed it, but has anyone posted examples of this happening in the lore, rather than just thought experiments?
I've read a decent amount of 40K fiction at this point, and I can't think of any examples of characters going full cyclic with lasguns to knock out optics on Land Raiders or finish off a Leman Russ already damaged from a meltagun or whatever.
Those explanations strike me as an attempt to rationalize an unintuitive mechanic, rather than something that actually reflects the setting.
The nearest I can offer you is the Cain book where there's a tervigon that's taken a hit from some hellstrikes (name of the book alludes me off top of my head and trying not to spoiler), the guard squad fire at it with lasguns and are noted to injure it by hitting the areas already injured. It's eventually dispatched via good old Jurgen's melta iirc but they specifically call out lucky shots hitting open wounds. That's a T11 2+sv creature.
That's an issue with only using a quarter of an army list written for Fantasy, rather than the core mechanics of 40K...
Yeah. . . Little sympathy there.
The alternative is to just implement specialized mechanics, such as ye-olde Haywire grenades, or Necron Scarabs, to compensate. Totally acceptable solutions, imo.
So, Nurgle Daemons, who can outnumber every single Marine currently in the galaxy with a single planet worth of them, don't deserve to be their own army?
Marines still have ten subfactions plus an entire extra Codec... But Nurgle Daemons, who are massively more distinct from each other type of Daemon than any given chapter is from Dark Angels, don't deserve to be a viable army?
That's not the point though, the fact of the matter is that they aren't their own army at time of writing so must be assessed as codex daemons for the sakes of the example.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2024/07/16 18:58:28
That's an issue with only using a quarter of an army list written for Fantasy, rather than the core mechanics of 40K...
Yeah. . . Little sympathy there.
The alternative is to just implement specialized mechanics, such as ye-olde Haywire grenades, or Necron Scarabs, to compensate. Totally acceptable solutions, imo.
So, Nurgle Daemons, who can outnumber every single Marine currently in the galaxy with a single planet worth of them, don't deserve to be their own army?
Marines still have ten subfactions plus an entire extra Codec... But Nurgle Daemons, who are massively more distinct from each other type of Daemon than any given chapter is from Dark Angels, don't deserve to be a viable army?
Whether they deserve or not to be their own army doesn't change the fact that they currently arent.
We've had this conversation many times, but the answer is simple : mono gods are probably gonna suck until GW splits demons into their god-aligned legions.
That's an issue with only using a quarter of an army list written for Fantasy, rather than the core mechanics of 40K...
Yeah. . . Little sympathy there.
The alternative is to just implement specialized mechanics, such as ye-olde Haywire grenades, or Necron Scarabs, to compensate. Totally acceptable solutions, imo.
So, Nurgle Daemons, who can outnumber every single Marine currently in the galaxy with a single planet worth of them, don't deserve to be their own army?
Marines still have ten subfactions plus an entire extra Codec... But Nurgle Daemons, who are massively more distinct from each other type of Daemon than any given chapter is from Dark Angels, don't deserve to be a viable army?
I didn't say they don't deserve to be their own army. But they plainly aren't. I'm also sorta surprised that a Great Unclean One doesn't have better than S8.
But really though, Nurgle Daemons is niche, and not a useful point in the overall debate. But see the rest of my post about alternative methods for dealing with that situation.
That's an issue with only using a quarter of an army list written for Fantasy, rather than the core mechanics of 40K...
Yeah. . . Little sympathy there.
The alternative is to just implement specialized mechanics, such as ye-olde Haywire grenades, or Necron Scarabs, to compensate. Totally acceptable solutions, imo.
So, Nurgle Daemons, who can outnumber every single Marine currently in the galaxy with a single planet worth of them, don't deserve to be their own army?
Marines still have ten subfactions plus an entire extra Codec... But Nurgle Daemons, who are massively more distinct from each other type of Daemon than any given chapter is from Dark Angels, don't deserve to be a viable army?
catbarf wrote:I apologize if I've missed it, but has anyone posted examples of this happening in the lore, rather than just thought experiments?
I've read a decent amount of 40K fiction at this point, and I can't think of any examples of characters going full cyclic with lasguns to knock out optics on Land Raiders or finish off a Leman Russ already damaged from a meltagun or whatever.
Those explanations strike me as an attempt to rationalize an unintuitive mechanic, rather than something that actually reflects the setting.
Two examples from Gaunt's Ghosts:
Mkoll kills a dreadnought in single combat, with nothing but a lasgun and the local environment. He overloads his lasgun power pack, and uses it to blow open the Dreadnought's sarcophagus. This, notably, does not kill it. The Dreadnought is *actually* killed by needles fired by nearby plants at the sound of the noise. A Dreadnought is killed by needles. Not dedicated anti-tank (evidently seen by how, as the Dreadnought is walking around, the needles are just bouncing off of its armour). A perfect example of a wounded vehicle being crippled and exposed, and its weakness being an opening for a non-AT weapon to finish the job.
Also GG, Gaunt and a trooper with a flamer kill another Dreadnought. Gaunt cuts some slashes into the dreadnought sarcophagus with a power sword (at the time, S4 in melee, which should not be able to affect a Dreadnought in melee), and then another trooper uses a flamer to boil the water around the Dreadnought, boiling it alive with the water vapour and promethium. Again, a S4 weapon.
Insectum7 wrote: That's quite a deflection. But as already posted, it was quite possible for a single Lascannon to destroy a tank in earlier editions.
Not reliably. IIRC a Lascannon hit had a 11.11% of destroying a tank through AV13 in 5th and 6th, and half that in 7th.
4th was an entirely different game with 19.44% though.
Sooooo, any examples of lasguns hurting tanks in the lore?
Hi. Gaunt's Ghosts. In one case, a lasgun and some plant needles kill a Dreadnought (which, at the time, were AV12 on front armour, so more durable than Rhinos), and another Dreadnought killed by a power sword and a flamer (both S4, and the power sword *in melee*, which should have been impossible because Dreadnoughts were never attacked in melee on rear armour).
In both cases, infantry-tier non-AT weaponry was able to kill a tank-equivalent unit. If you turn around and say "WELL, BUT A DREADNOUGHT ISN'T A TANK", you'd better be okay with lasguns being able to kill Rhinos too, as they have lighter armour.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2024/07/16 19:35:12
catbarf wrote:I apologize if I've missed it, but has anyone posted examples of this happening in the lore, rather than just thought experiments?
I've read a decent amount of 40K fiction at this point, and I can't think of any examples of characters going full cyclic with lasguns to knock out optics on Land Raiders or finish off a Leman Russ already damaged from a meltagun or whatever.
Those explanations strike me as an attempt to rationalize an unintuitive mechanic, rather than something that actually reflects the setting.
Two examples from Gaunt's Ghosts:
Mkoll kills a dreadnought in single combat, with nothing but a lasgun and the local environment. He overloads his lasgun power pack, and uses it to blow open the Dreadnought's sarcophagus. This, notably, does not kill it. The Dreadnought is *actually* killed by needles fired by nearby plants at the sound of the noise. A Dreadnought is killed by needles. Not dedicated anti-tank (evidently seen by how, as the Dreadnought is walking around, the needles are just bouncing off of its armour). A perfect example of a wounded vehicle being crippled and exposed, and its weakness being an opening for a non-AT weapon to finish the job.
Also GG, Gaunt and a trooper with a flamer kill another Dreadnought. Gaunt cuts some slashes into the dreadnought sarcophagus with a power sword (at the time, S4 in melee, which should not be able to affect a Dreadnought in melee), and then another trooper uses a flamer to boil the water around the Dreadnought, boiling it alive with the water vapour and promethium. Again, a S4 weapon.
Neither of those are using lasgun fire. The one using a lasgun is intentionally blowing up the Lasgun . . . I am amused.
catbarf wrote:I apologize if I've missed it, but has anyone posted examples of this happening in the lore, rather than just thought experiments?
I've read a decent amount of 40K fiction at this point, and I can't think of any examples of characters going full cyclic with lasguns to knock out optics on Land Raiders or finish off a Leman Russ already damaged from a meltagun or whatever.
Those explanations strike me as an attempt to rationalize an unintuitive mechanic, rather than something that actually reflects the setting.
Two examples from Gaunt's Ghosts:
Mkoll kills a dreadnought in single combat, with nothing but a lasgun and the local environment. He overloads his lasgun power pack, and uses it to blow open the Dreadnought's sarcophagus. This, notably, does not kill it. The Dreadnought is *actually* killed by needles fired by nearby plants at the sound of the noise. A Dreadnought is killed by needles. Not dedicated anti-tank (evidently seen by how, as the Dreadnought is walking around, the needles are just bouncing off of its armour). A perfect example of a wounded vehicle being crippled and exposed, and its weakness being an opening for a non-AT weapon to finish the job.
Also GG, Gaunt and a trooper with a flamer kill another Dreadnought. Gaunt cuts some slashes into the dreadnought sarcophagus with a power sword (at the time, S4 in melee, which should not be able to affect a Dreadnought in melee), and then another trooper uses a flamer to boil the water around the Dreadnought, boiling it alive with the water vapour and promethium. Again, a S4 weapon.
Neither of those are using lasgun fire. The one using a lasgun is intentionally blowing up the Lasgun . . . I am amused.
Okay, so what stats do you think those plant needles had? Lasguns can't kill tanks, but piddly plant needles can?
Is that the hill you want to die on?
And that flamers and power swords are tank killers too?
It sounds like you're missing the context of WHY I brought up those examples (that non-AT weaponry can bring down armoured targets if they've taken extensive damage and with a LOT of luck) - but sure, if you want to be a pedant, then you surely agree that vehicles should be at risk from... needles fired by plants?
Soul Grinder is generic Daemons, but it can be taken as Nurgle with its three-shot battle cannon and S16 melee.
That’s on me for forgetting. (Still want more options than one generic unit, though.)
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, @JNA: A Soul Grinder has options for S9, 10, 12 and 16 weapons . . .
OK, I want you to define the practical differences between a wounded tervigon and a damaged vehicle and why they functionality are/should be different please.
JNAProductions wrote: Soul Grinder is generic Daemons, but it can be taken as Nurgle with its three-shot battle cannon and S16 melee.
That’s on me for forgetting. (Still want more options than one generic unit, though.)
It's got the upside that the nurgle models for it are the nicest looking ones (plague hulk). I Wish the other gods got special sculpts for it
catbarf wrote:I apologize if I've missed it, but has anyone posted examples of this happening in the lore, rather than just thought experiments?
I've read a decent amount of 40K fiction at this point, and I can't think of any examples of characters going full cyclic with lasguns to knock out optics on Land Raiders or finish off a Leman Russ already damaged from a meltagun or whatever.
Those explanations strike me as an attempt to rationalize an unintuitive mechanic, rather than something that actually reflects the setting.
Two examples from Gaunt's Ghosts:
Mkoll kills a dreadnought in single combat, with nothing but a lasgun and the local environment. He overloads his lasgun power pack, and uses it to blow open the Dreadnought's sarcophagus. This, notably, does not kill it. The Dreadnought is *actually* killed by needles fired by nearby plants at the sound of the noise. A Dreadnought is killed by needles. Not dedicated anti-tank (evidently seen by how, as the Dreadnought is walking around, the needles are just bouncing off of its armour). A perfect example of a wounded vehicle being crippled and exposed, and its weakness being an opening for a non-AT weapon to finish the job.
Also GG, Gaunt and a trooper with a flamer kill another Dreadnought. Gaunt cuts some slashes into the dreadnought sarcophagus with a power sword (at the time, S4 in melee, which should not be able to affect a Dreadnought in melee), and then another trooper uses a flamer to boil the water around the Dreadnought, boiling it alive with the water vapour and promethium. Again, a S4 weapon.
Neither of those are using lasgun fire. The one using a lasgun is intentionally blowing up the Lasgun . . . I am amused.
Okay, so what stats do you think those plant needles had? Lasguns can't kill tanks, but piddly plant needles can?
Is that the hill you want to die on?
And that flamers and power swords are tank killers too?
It sounds like you're missing the context of WHY I brought up those examples (that non-AT weaponry can bring down armoured targets if they've taken extensive damage and with a LOT of luck) - but sure, if you want to be a pedant, then you surely agree that vehicles should be at risk from... needles fired by plants?
Soooooo cinematic.
Yeah, Smudge's examples are pretty spot-on, Insectum. It's not literally a lasgun going thorugh hull plates and blowing up a tank, but it *is* showing the idea of low-strength weapons being able to eventually do damage to vehicles that are largely resistant to them. And the flamer example is just straight up a flamer killing a dread. It feels like you're trying to shuffle the goal post around rather than engaging in good faith at this point.
Smudge's examples seem like they represent the idea that anti-infantry weapons, though not particularly good at the job, can hurt vehicles in a pinch. Which is kind of where the current rules are at the moment. That said, I'm still not opposed to just giving every unit in the game some sort of anti-tank attack.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JNAProductions wrote: Soul Grinder is generic Daemons, but it can be taken as Nurgle with its three-shot battle cannon and S16 melee.
That’s on me for forgetting. (Still want more options than one generic unit, though.)
Three soul grinders is still a kind of specific set of unit picks for your army and also not a ton of anti-tank nor particularly hard to kill off in a couple of turns. So I think your initial point about some armies not having tons of AT still stands.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2024/07/16 19:55:10
ATTENTION. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
Three soul grinders is still a kind of specific set of unit picks for your army and also not a ton of anti-tank nor particularly hard to kill off in a couple of turns. So I think your initial point about some armies not having tons of AT still stands.
soul grinders are deceptively tanky IMO, if the sculpt was better, i probably would run more than 1
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2024/07/16 19:58:00
Wyldhunt wrote: If the former, what about the examples provided for how a lasbolt could do major damage to an already damaged vehicle?
I apologize if I've missed it, but has anyone posted examples of this happening in the lore, rather than just thought experiments?
I've read a decent amount of 40K fiction at this point, and I can't think of any examples of characters going full cyclic with lasguns to knock out optics on Land Raiders or finish off a Leman Russ already damaged from a meltagun or whatever.
Those explanations strike me as an attempt to rationalize an unintuitive mechanic, rather than something that actually reflects the setting.
That’s exactly what it is.
It reminds me a lot of mcdojo people who try to explain why unrealistic fighting techniques are super devastating, even though they’ve never pulled it off or seen someone pull it off in an actual fight.
Wyldhunt wrote: If the former, what about the examples provided for how a lasbolt could do major damage to an already damaged vehicle?
I apologize if I've missed it, but has anyone posted examples of this happening in the lore, rather than just thought experiments?
I've read a decent amount of 40K fiction at this point, and I can't think of any examples of characters going full cyclic with lasguns to knock out optics on Land Raiders or finish off a Leman Russ already damaged from a meltagun or whatever.
Those explanations strike me as an attempt to rationalize an unintuitive mechanic, rather than something that actually reflects the setting.
That’s exactly what it is.
It reminds me a lot of mcdojo people who try to explain why unrealistic fighting techniques are super devastating, even though they’ve never pulled it off or seen someone pull it off in an actual fight.
To clarify, is the critcism here that I took your word that you blew up a repulsor with a lasgun on the tabletop, or that I don't have first-hand experiencing using laser guns to blow up sci-fi tanks?
EDIT: Also, apologies if I missed it, but I still haven't seen you explain why you feel it's unreasonable to have a lasgun do damage to an already damaged vehicle, John. See previous posts about fuel leaks, exposed computers, exposed crew, etc.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2024/07/16 20:17:07
ATTENTION. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
