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.
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.
Material differences, shape differences, structural differences, mechanical differences. A tank can lose fuel and it's engine can sieze but the crew could still operate weapons. Loss of blood means loss of brain function and the creature dies. There's plenty of differences if we want to determine whether or not they matter. Tell me why they're the same. Just because GW has abstracted it to be so? I wonder when that story was written, when Vehicle rules and MCs were the same or different.
But fyi, I was perfectly fine with the old days of S3 not being able to hurt T7+ etc.
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.
Material differences, shape differences, structural differences, mechanical differences. A tank can lose fuel and it's engine can sieze but the crew could still operate weapons. Loss of blood means loss of brain function and the creature dies. There's plenty of differences if we want to determine whether or not they matter. Tell me why they're the same. Just because GW has abstracted it to be so? I wonder when that story was written, when Vehicle rules and MCs were the same or different.
But fyi, I was perfectly fine with the old days of S3 not being able to hurt T7+ etc.
We've had this conversation a few times already. In the context of 40k, monsters can suffer the same types of damage vehicles can and keep going. Tyranids, daemons, and wraith lords aren't prone to bleeding out the way a real-world animal would. A t-fex can have its legs blown off and still shoot its gun. A wraitih lord can have its gun arm blown off and still run around. A vehicle crew can be shaken, and a carnifex can have its brain rattled by a heavy impact. In practical terms, vehicles and monsters suffer damage in effectively the same ways.
EDIT: And of course, the line gets even more blurry when we start talking about "mechanical" monsters like daemon engines, soul grinders, and walkers with exposed organic pilots.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2024/07/16 20:24:53
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.
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.
Well, I'd suggest looking at the original question asked and applying it to the warring contexts. Neither of Smudges examples are anywhere near the tabletop occurence of massed lasgun fire knocking out subsystems or vulnerable sections at range attacking the front of a tank. What they sound much more like, amusingly, is the old system where vehicles had weaker armor in the rear and in close quarters, where infantry could take advantage of weak points.
But also, those plant "needles", how do we know their relative strength? I think many Tyranid weapons are described as "needles".
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.
I mean…an overcharged las cell basically an AT grenade, and powerswords are meant to cut through armor…so not great examples…
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.
Well, I'd suggest looking at the original question asked and applying it to the warring contexts. Neither of Smudges examples are anywhere near the tabletop occurence of massed lasgun fire knocking out subsystems or vulnerable sections at range attacking the front of a tank. What they sound much more like, amusingly, is the old system where vehicles had weaker armor in the rear and in close quarters, where infantry could take advantage of weak points.
They are examples of small arms capitalizing on existing damage to do additional damage by hitting exposed weak points though. Which is relevant to the "I finished off a repulsor with a lasgun" anecdote.
But also, those plant "needles", how do we know their relative strength? I think many Tyranid weapons are described as "needles".
Smudge mentioned the needles bounced off of the dread's armor and only managed to do damage once a weakness had been exposed. Suggesting that the needles couldn't get through the undamaged armor but could inflict further damage on the damaged sarcophagus.
I mean…an overcharged las cell basically an AT grenade, and powerswords are meant to cut through armor…so not great examples…
For purposes of this discussion, are we not treating a strength 4 powersword as "small arms?" Did you intend to propose that vehicles be immune to low-strength weapons unless their AP was sufficiently good?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2024/07/16 20:52:35
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.
Insectum7 wrote: Well, I'd suggest looking at the original question asked and applying it to the warring contexts. Neither of Smudges examples are anywhere near the tabletop occurence of massed lasgun fire knocking out subsystems or vulnerable sections at range attacking the front of a tank. What they sound much more like, amusingly, is the old system where vehicles had weaker armor in the rear and in close quarters, where infantry could take advantage of weak points.
Neither example has anyone attacking "rear armour" though. This is an incorrect reading of the examples (doubly so in the second one, where infantry famously had NO advantage against a Dreadnought in close combat, due to Dreadnoughts not being attacked on rear armour).
Wyldhunt has my point down correctly - that vehicles can, and are, killed by anti-infantry weaponry after a vehicle has taken substantial damage from other sources. Yes, I don't have an example of "tank killed by hundreds of lasguns firing at the same time", but that's because I've never argued in favour of that. Fortunately, that's also not something that the game in it's current state supports either - because that's ridiculously difficult to the point of impossibility.
But a critically wounded vehicle being finally destroyed by light arms? That's totally a thing, and totally possible in both contexts.
But also, those plant "needles", how do we know their relative strength? I think many Tyranid weapons are described as "needles".
So, in the section, Mkoll observes that the needles are literally bouncing off the Dreadnought carapace as it walks through them. (For context, these needles are defensive measures for the plants, they fire when they hear a loud enough noises. The Dreadnought walking through this glade is literally causing needles to fire constantly, and they're doing no damage to it.)
And yet, when the Dreadnought is blown open, the remains of the pilot are killed by these needles firing. In game terms, these are almost certainly anti-infantry weapons, nowhere near the anti-tank that some Tyranids can provide.
again though, if you’re only taking lascannons and bolters, or lascannons and lasguns as weapon options in your army, that’s a you problem.
Every army has easy access to plenty of weapons in between that could be focused into a tank to take it down in the event all of your dedicated AT is nuked in one or two turns.
Autocannons, plasma, krak weapons, assault cannons, melta, grav weapons, neovolkite, etc.
Imperial factions are by far and away the most common and this is just a small example of intermediate weapons (based on current stats) that can be taken in relatively large numbers and still be used for a unit to interact with a vehicle or monster in meaningful ways.
Now if your dedicated AT and intermediate weapons are all taken out in a turn or two, then that’s likely a you problem choosing poor positioning, and doesn’t justify ham fisted game mechanics to ‘make up’ for individual short falls.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2024/07/16 21:03:31
johnpjones1775 wrote: powerswords are meant to cut through armor…so not great examples…
Just to clarify, Gaunt's sword had tabletop stats at the time - it was a S4 weapon. Dreadnoughts, in melee, would have been AV12. It *should not have been mechanically possible for Gaunt to hurt it*.
And yet, it did. So, either you agree that bolters (a fellow S4 weapon) should be able to kill tanks, or that it's the AP, and not the strength of the attack, that determines effectiveness. This implies that hot-shot lasguns should be premier anti-tank weapons, because they also cut through armour, despite being S3?
Insectum7 wrote: Well, I'd suggest looking at the original question asked and applying it to the warring contexts. Neither of Smudges examples are anywhere near the tabletop occurence of massed lasgun fire knocking out subsystems or vulnerable sections at range attacking the front of a tank. What they sound much more like, amusingly, is the old system where vehicles had weaker armor in the rear and in close quarters, where infantry could take advantage of weak points.
Neither example has anyone attacking "rear armour" though. This is an incorrect reading of the examples (doubly so in the second one, where infantry famously had NO advantage against a Dreadnought in close combat, due to Dreadnoughts not being attacked on rear armour).
Wyldhunt has my point down correctly - that vehicles can, and are, killed by anti-infantry weaponry after a vehicle has taken substantial damage from other sources. Yes, I don't have an example of "tank killed by hundreds of lasguns firing at the same time", but that's because I've never argued in favour of that. Fortunately, that's also not something that the game in it's current state supports either - because that's ridiculously difficult to the point of impossibility.
But a critically wounded vehicle being finally destroyed by light arms? That's totally a thing, and totally possible in both contexts.
But also, those plant "needles", how do we know their relative strength? I think many Tyranid weapons are described as "needles".
So, in the section, Mkoll observes that the needles are literally bouncing off the Dreadnought carapace as it walks through them. (For context, these needles are defensive measures for the plants, they fire when they hear a loud enough noises. The Dreadnought walking through this glade is literally causing needles to fire constantly, and they're doing no damage to it.)
And yet, when the Dreadnought is blown open, the remains of the pilot are killed by these needles firing. In game terms, these are almost certainly anti-infantry weapons, nowhere near the anti-tank that some Tyranids can provide.
one of the dreadnought examples gaunt did attack the rear armor…and then the marine inside was boiled to death…
We’ve been talking about making it impossible for certain weapons to not hurt certain units. Such a major change of mechanics there would have to be some adjustments made to most if not all weapons and wargear.
The conversation has kind of been going along a couple different paths as far as I can tell. People seem to generally agree (or at least I agree) that making vehicles immune to small arms fire is fine if you also give every (or nearly every) unit some way to meaningfully harm tanks. But it has been ambiguous for a page or so now as to whether people were talking with that conceit in mind or just discussing the consequences of giving vehicles small arms immunity in a vacuum.
There would be no point in JNA pointing out that Nurgle daemons lack high strength weapons if the conversation at that point in time assumed that every nurgling was going to have a corrossive touch special rule or whatever to make their lack of high strength weapons irrelevant. Nor would people have bothered trying to justify that problem if it was understood among those posting that plaguebearers and nurglings were going to be killing tanks as part of the proposed changes.
But again, if anyone is taking only high S high AP high D weapons and only low S low AP low D weapons you really screwed up.
There’s quite a few intermediate weapons options that a player could and should be taking alongside their basic rifles and dedicated AT weapons.
Honestly, some armies don't have a ton of middle-ground weapons and aren't really designed to do so. Drukhari tend to either have weapons designed to kill big stuff or weapons designed to kill little stuff with not a ton of weapons in-between. But that's kind of beside the point. While it's generally a good idea to have a healthy mix of weapons in your list, granting vehicles immunity to small arms still lends itself to that, "You must be this Anti-Tank to ride," effect which would result in less list diversity unless you hand out free anti-tank measures to everyone to compensate.
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.
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.
Material differences, shape differences, structural differences, mechanical differences. A tank can lose fuel and it's engine can sieze but the crew could still operate weapons. Loss of blood means loss of brain function and the creature dies. There's plenty of differences if we want to determine whether or not they matter. Tell me why they're the same. Just because GW has abstracted it to be so? I wonder when that story was written, when Vehicle rules and MCs were the same or different.
But fyi, I was perfectly fine with the old days of S3 not being able to hurt T7+ etc.
We've had this conversation a few times already. In the context of 40k, monsters can suffer the same types of damage vehicles can and keep going. Tyranids, daemons, and wraith lords aren't prone to bleeding out the way a real-world animal would. A t-fex can have its legs blown off and still shoot its gun. A wraitih lord can have its gun arm blown off and still run around. A vehicle crew can be shaken, and a carnifex can have its brain rattled by a heavy impact. In practical terms, vehicles and monsters suffer damage in effectively the same ways.
EDIT: And of course, the line gets even more blurry when we start talking about "mechanical" monsters like daemon engines, soul grinders, and walkers with exposed organic pilots.
Well said. Arteries, fuel pipes, intestines, drive shafts, lungs, computers. All vital internal components, all nestled inside thick layers of armour and redundant systems.
If we start to go onto material, shape, structural and mechanical differences, what makes a wave serpent mechanically a vehicle? Why isn't a wraith lord? A devil fish is nothing like a rhino in shape or material. A crisis suit isn't a vehicle, but a sentinel is.
Why can't a lasgun hit the driver or components in an open top sentinel, it literally cannot hurt it. But it can kill a tau pilot entirely encased in a ceramic battle suit pre-8th.
Again, what makes any of the justifications for a mildly illogical game scenario more of a problem than a muscle guy being able to punch a tank to death bare handed.
This entire debate is fething stupid. It's a problem that a laser that heats substances and melts them can degrade vehicles or hit an exposed component.
Yet it's a bigger issue than the fact titans don't crush the earth and sink mid game, that knights can walk through mountains in the rules, a skitarii with arbequs loses 1/3 of its movement to rotate. We have drukhari poison that only works against humanoids, sprout 2 limbs and you're immune apparently. Being hit with a supercharged burst of plasma, material stars are consisting of, does less damage and hits less hard than some solid slugs.
None of it makes sense, it's all abstract gak. But no, the fact a laser gun tickled a damaged component on a vehicle with holes in it is too far.
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.
Well, I'd suggest looking at the original question asked and applying it to the warring contexts. Neither of Smudges examples are anywhere near the tabletop occurence of massed lasgun fire knocking out subsystems or vulnerable sections at range attacking the front of a tank. What they sound much more like, amusingly, is the old system where vehicles had weaker armor in the rear and in close quarters, where infantry could take advantage of weak points.
They are examples of small arms capitalizing on existing damage to do additional damage by hitting exposed weak points though. Which is relevant to the "I finished off a repulsor with a lasgun" anecdote.
But also, those plant "needles", how do we know their relative strength? I think many Tyranid weapons are described as "needles".
Smudge mentioned the needles bounced off of the dread's armor and only managed to do damage once a weakness had been exposed. Suggesting that the needles couldn't get through the undamaged armor but could inflict further damage on the damaged sarcophagus.
I mean…an overcharged las cell basically an AT grenade, and powerswords are meant to cut through armor…so not great examples…
For purposes of this discussion, are we not treating a strength 4 powersword as "small arms?" Did you intend to propose that vehicles be immune to low-strength weapons unless their AP was sufficiently good?
imho power swords for guard have been a little anemic.
However it wasn’t a generic powersword does anyone know what his sword’s stats were when the first gaunt model was released?
johnpjones1775 wrote: one of the dreadnought examples gaunt did attack the rear armor…and then the marine inside was boiled to death…
So you agree that an S4 AP0 flamer killed a vehicle then?
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.
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.
Well, I'd suggest looking at the original question asked and applying it to the warring contexts. Neither of Smudges examples are anywhere near the tabletop occurence of massed lasgun fire knocking out subsystems or vulnerable sections at range attacking the front of a tank. What they sound much more like, amusingly, is the old system where vehicles had weaker armor in the rear and in close quarters, where infantry could take advantage of weak points.
They are examples of small arms capitalizing on existing damage to do additional damage by hitting exposed weak points though. Which is relevant to the "I finished off a repulsor with a lasgun" anecdote.
But also, those plant "needles", how do we know their relative strength? I think many Tyranid weapons are described as "needles".
Smudge mentioned the needles bounced off of the dread's armor and only managed to do damage once a weakness had been exposed. Suggesting that the needles couldn't get through the undamaged armor but could inflict further damage on the damaged sarcophagus.
I mean…an overcharged las cell basically an AT grenade, and powerswords are meant to cut through armor…so not great examples…
For purposes of this discussion, are we not treating a strength 4 powersword as "small arms?" Did you intend to propose that vehicles be immune to low-strength weapons unless their AP was sufficiently good?
imho power swords for guard have been a little anemic.
However it wasn’t a generic powersword does anyone know what his sword’s stats were when the first gaunt model was released?
They already told you, s4 power weapon, which at the time was no armour saves, in a time when a vehicle didn't have an armour save. The dread would be av12 on the front, so you'd need an 8 on a d6 to glance it.
Being hit with a supercharged burst of plasma, material stars are consisting of, does less damage and hits less hard than some solid slugs.
Nitpick but there is nothing wrong with that.
Modern plasma torches can reach temperatures higher than the surface of the sun, yet getting hit with a high caliber bullet will still do more damage.
Meh, that's not quite comparable to a plasma cannon vs an autocannon, because we've no benchmark, it just seems weird to me that the autocannon has higher S and D.
I guess to tie into your example, comparing a main weapon on an atv today to a torch is more apples to wrenches?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2024/07/16 21:22:49
We’ve been talking about making it impossible for certain weapons to not hurt certain units. Such a major change of mechanics there would have to be some adjustments made to most if not all weapons and wargear.
The conversation has kind of been going along a couple different paths as far as I can tell. People seem to generally agree (or at least I agree) that making vehicles immune to small arms fire is fine if you also give every (or nearly every) unit some way to meaningfully harm tanks. But it has been ambiguous for a page or so now as to whether people were talking with that conceit in mind or just discussing the consequences of giving vehicles small arms immunity in a vacuum.
There would be no point in JNA pointing out that Nurgle daemons lack high strength weapons if the conversation at that point in time assumed that every nurgling was going to have a corrossive touch special rule or whatever to make their lack of high strength weapons irrelevant. Nor would people have bothered trying to justify that problem if it was understood among those posting that plaguebearers and nurglings were going to be killing tanks as part of the proposed changes.
But again, if anyone is taking only high S high AP high D weapons and only low S low AP low D weapons you really screwed up.
There’s quite a few intermediate weapons options that a player could and should be taking alongside their basic rifles and dedicated AT weapons.
Honestly, some armies don't have a ton of middle-ground weapons and aren't really designed to do so. Drukhari tend to either have weapons designed to kill big stuff or weapons designed to kill little stuff with not a ton of weapons in-between. But that's kind of beside the point. While it's generally a good idea to have a healthy mix of weapons in your list, granting vehicles immunity to small arms still lends itself to that, "You must be this Anti-Tank to ride," effect which would result in less list diversity unless you hand out free anti-tank measures to everyone to compensate.
Looking through the index
Archons have access to S8 AP-3 D3
Beast master has access to two S5 weapons
Court of the archon access to 2 S5 weapons
Cronos 3 S5 weapons
Drazhar S6 and S5 twin linked
Grotesques S5
Warriors access to 3 different intermediate weapons
Mandrakes 2 S5 weapons
Raider&ravager 2 S5-9 wepaons
Reavers 1 S8
Scourges 3
Succubuses 1
Talos 5
Venom 1
Wracks 1
Wyches 1
So that’s the majority (not counting their aircraft or super heavy) of their datasheets have access to intermediate weapons just like every other army.
Dudeface wrote: . . .
They already told you, s4 power weapon, which at the time was no armour saves, in a time when a vehicle didn't have an armour save. The dread would be av12 on the front, so you'd need an 8 on a d6 to glance it.
Aaagghhktually. . .
In the Cityfight rules they made an adjustment to the Dreadnought rules in CC where a Dreadnought could only be hurt on the front during its first round of combat, but in subsequent rounds it could be hit on the rear, iirc. It may have had to do with model placement, but it's been 20+ years.
I missed AV a lot, and still enjoy it in HH2. It's not perfect, but it brings a lot to the table when you don't have to worry about small arms fire.
I'm still salty over the time a warhound titan was taken out with bolter fire in 8th. my opponent had a lot of anti tank, but I distinctly remember having bolters blast the hell out of my poor warhound when it first hit the table.
We played 5th - 7th editions without lasguns or bolters being able to kill most vehicles. we where fine then, and I would love to return to that era.
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.
Material differences, shape differences, structural differences, mechanical differences. A tank can lose fuel and it's engine can sieze but the crew could still operate weapons. Loss of blood means loss of brain function and the creature dies. There's plenty of differences if we want to determine whether or not they matter. Tell me why they're the same. Just because GW has abstracted it to be so? I wonder when that story was written, when Vehicle rules and MCs were the same or different.
But fyi, I was perfectly fine with the old days of S3 not being able to hurt T7+ etc.
We've had this conversation a few times already. In the context of 40k, monsters can suffer the same types of damage vehicles can and keep going. Tyranids, daemons, and wraith lords aren't prone to bleeding out the way a real-world animal would. A t-fex can have its legs blown off and still shoot its gun. A wraitih lord can have its gun arm blown off and still run around. A vehicle crew can be shaken, and a carnifex can have its brain rattled by a heavy impact. In practical terms, vehicles and monsters suffer damage in effectively the same ways.
EDIT: And of course, the line gets even more blurry when we start talking about "mechanical" monsters like daemon engines, soul grinders, and walkers with exposed organic pilots.
Imo it's a point where you can make distinctions if you want to, or make them the same if you want to. It can work both ways to a good degree. I think I prefer differences. Requiring different strategies to deal with different targets, especially when dealing larger models, is generally a plus.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2024/07/16 21:48:35
johnpjones1775 wrote:one of the dreadnought examples gaunt did attack the rear armor…and then the marine inside was boiled to death…
So, two different avenues to go through here:
Mechanically, in the game, Dreadnoughts *could not be attacked on rear armour in melee*. They were assumed to be able to shift their body around to protect their rear, and so, mechanically, the Dreadnought would have been AV12, compared to Gaunt's S4. There would have been no way for Gaunt to hurt it, nor the flamer from damaging it at S4 (unless you want to argue that the boiling water got hotter than the promethium boiling it?)
Narratively, that's also not even fully true, because the rear of a Dreadnought isn't where the pilot is. The pilot is at the front, which is where Gaunt would have had to be cutting away with his power sword in order to let the steam in to boil the pilot alive. Furthermore, narratively, it also backs up this idea that, yes, a vehicle can be destroyed by weapons that are not designed to be killing tanks. In this case, a power sword (not anti-tank), and a flamer (which gets lucky and uses environmental features around it to cause the final "wounds").
Environmental effects which have been suggested as previous examples how to "kill" a Repulsor, for example (exposed fuel, comms systems, ammo and magazines, exposed pilots/controls, visions slits, grav plates, etc) - so, why the difference here?
johnpjones1775 wrote: does anyone know what his sword’s stats were when the first gaunt model was released?
Yes. Strength 4. As strong as a bolter round.
johnpjones1775 wrote:no, the flamers didn’t harm the vehicle.
The boiling water killed the vehicle.
Oh, so a lasgun can't hurt a vehicle, but hot water can?
Dudeface wrote: . . .
They already told you, s4 power weapon, which at the time was no armour saves, in a time when a vehicle didn't have an armour save. The dread would be av12 on the front, so you'd need an 8 on a d6 to glance it.
Aaagghhktually. . .
In the Cityfight rules they made an adjustment to the Dreadnought rules in CC where a Dreadnought could only be hurt on the front during its first round of combat, but in subsequent rounds it could be hit on the rear, iirc. It may have had to do with model placement, but it's been 20+ years.
Cityfight wasn't always in play - it was a variant ruleset from, as you say, 20+ years ago. In most versions of the game, and, most relevantly, in majority of pre-8th rules, Dreadnoughts were immune to being attacked on the rear in melee. An optional ruleset from 20+ years ago is negligible defence here.
Gaunt and a flamer killed a Dreadnought. Neither used "anti-tank" weapons, which is the complaint being raised here.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2024/07/16 21:49:20
Low S weapons need to be able to wound tanks to counter armored skew lists…but if your AT is nuked in T1 or T2, shaving the last wound or two off of one or two tanks, isn’t going to make a damn difference.
The only time shaving a wound or two off a tank to finish it makes a difference when your AT is gone, is when there’s only 1 enemy tank left on the table…so the opposite of a skew list.
I mean…an overcharged las cell basically an AT grenade, and powerswords are meant to cut through armor…so not great examples…
thats the point......
A plant/flamer managed to kill a vehicle because anti-armor stuff attacked it first....
Automatically Appended Next Post:
johnpjones1775 wrote: no, the flamers didn’t harm the vehicle.
The boiling water killed the vehicle.
holy mother of bad faith.
No bad faith. It’s fact. The flames from the flamers did nothing to the vehicle.
The point is also that gaunt is touched by a god damn saint, possibly preferred by the emperor himself…arguing his good luck justifies las guns being able to wound a tank is the bad faith argument.
johnpjones1775 wrote: no, the flamers didn’t harm the vehicle.
The boiling water killed the vehicle.
No, the boiling water killed the occupant, because something that shouldn't be able to hurt it scratched it open.
yes, the commissar who is literally touched by an imperial saint, maybe his luck isn’t the best argument to make.
But let’s see here, we have 2 examples as a result of a commissar touched by a saint, out of dozens if not 100+ novels the people here can only come up with 2 examples from the same author in the same series about the same people who are protected and guided by a saint, I’d say that’s not enough to justify the bad mechanic.
If anyone can provide a verifiable account of a small arm (rifle, pistol ((caliber under .75 or roughly 14mm, shotgun) doing any serious meaningful damage to a tank in real life combat I will completely drop the argument.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2024/07/16 22:16:57
johnpjones1775 wrote: no, the flamers didn’t harm the vehicle.
The boiling water killed the vehicle.
holy mother of bad faith.
No bad faith. It’s fact. The flames from the flamers did nothing to the vehicle.
So, you're arguing that boiling water is MORE dangerous than the promethium fuel boiling it?
Seriously??
The point is also that gaunt is touched by a god damn saint
Actually, he wasn't. One of his troopers, Kolea, was. Gaunt is a colonel-commissar with a slightly more powerful power sword (represented by it being +1 S).
Plus, like you said - it wasn't his sword that killed it, it was... boiling water. Boiling water, boiled by a flamer.
johnpjones1775 wrote: no, the flamers didn’t harm the vehicle.
The boiling water killed the vehicle.
No, the boiling water killed the occupant, because something that shouldn't be able to hurt it scratched it open.
yes, the commissar who is literally touched by an imperial saint, maybe his luck isn’t the best argument to make.
No, he literally wasn't.
Gol Kolea, a random trooper, was. There was no evidence that Gaunt was supernaturally gifted, and, like you said, IT WASN'T EVEN GAUNT THAT KILLED IT. It was a flamer, boiling water. Is boiling water an anti-tank weapon now?
Plus, you're not even talking about the example earlier, which is Mkoll killing one with *plant needles and a lasgun*.
But let’s see here, we have 2 examples as a result of a commissar touched by a saint
Can you read correctly? There was ONE example of Gaunt and Brostin killing one Dreadnought (with a power sword and a flamer), and a second, of Mkoll killing one with a lasgun and plant needles.
In neither case were there any dedicated anti-tank weapons or explicit divine intervention.
out of dozens if not 100+ novels the people here can only come up with 2 examples from the same author in the same series about the same people who are protected and guided by a saint, I’d say that’s not enough to justify the bad mechanic.
You asked for examples. We gave them to you. First, you try and claim that, apparently, hot water is an anti-tank weapon. Next, you argue (incorrectly) that there was an element of divine intervention (which is patently untrue in the first example, and is never indicated in the second, and should then also apparently justify Sisters of Battle being able to bolter tanks to death, because of their miracles), and finally "nuh uh that lore doesn't count".
Have you grown tired from shifting those goalposts?
I'd also like to point out, those are the two examples that immediately came to my head, without any research, opening a book, or googling. No-one is claiming these are the *only* cases, but simply that they exist, and refute your entire premise. Three times, you attempt to deny them, and three times, you're left with egg on your face.
If anyone can provide a verifiable account of a small arm (rifle, pistol ((caliber under .75 or roughly 14mm, shotgun) doing any serious meaningful damage to a tank in real life combat I will completely drop the argument.
Holy mother of all goalpost shifting. You're not arguing in any faith at all!
Nurgle Deamons is not an army in & of itself. The army is Chaos Deamons, includes 3 other subsets of Deamons, the freedom to mix & match, & does have S9+ options.
Deamon players can also spend pts on Knights.
Choosing to handicap yourself by not playing with all your options? Is just that. Your choice.
johnpjones1775 wrote: no, the flamers didn’t harm the vehicle.
The boiling water killed the vehicle.
holy mother of bad faith.
No bad faith. It’s fact. The flames from the flamers did nothing to the vehicle.
So, you're arguing that boiling water is MORE dangerous than the promethium fuel boiling it?
Seriously??
The point is also that gaunt is touched by a god damn saint
Actually, he wasn't. One of his troopers, Kolea, was. Gaunt is a colonel-commissar with a slightly more powerful power sword (represented by it being +1 S).
Plus, like you said - it wasn't his sword that killed it, it was... boiling water. Boiling water, boiled by a flamer.
johnpjones1775 wrote: no, the flamers didn’t harm the vehicle.
The boiling water killed the vehicle.
No, the boiling water killed the occupant, because something that shouldn't be able to hurt it scratched it open.
yes, the commissar who is literally touched by an imperial saint, maybe his luck isn’t the best argument to make.
No, he literally wasn't.
Gol Kolea, a random trooper, was. There was no evidence that Gaunt was supernaturally gifted, and, like you said, IT WASN'T EVEN GAUNT THAT KILLED IT. It was a flamer, boiling water. Is boiling water an anti-tank weapon now?
Plus, you're not even talking about the example earlier, which is Mkoll killing one with *plant needles and a lasgun*.
But let’s see here, we have 2 examples as a result of a commissar touched by a saint
Can you read correctly? There was ONE example of Gaunt and Brostin killing one Dreadnought (with a power sword and a flamer), and a second, of Mkoll killing one with a lasgun and plant needles.
In neither case were there any dedicated anti-tank weapons or explicit divine intervention.
out of dozens if not 100+ novels the people here can only come up with 2 examples from the same author in the same series about the same people who are protected and guided by a saint, I’d say that’s not enough to justify the bad mechanic.
You asked for examples. We gave them to you. First, you try and claim that, apparently, hot water is an anti-tank weapon. Next, you argue (incorrectly) that there was an element of divine intervention (which is patently untrue in the first example, and is never indicated in the second, and should then also apparently justify Sisters of Battle being able to bolter tanks to death, because of their miracles), and finally "nuh uh that lore doesn't count".
Have you grown tired from shifting those goalposts?
I'd also like to point out, those are the two examples that immediately came to my head, without any research, opening a book, or googling. No-one is claiming these are the *only* cases, but simply that they exist, and refute your entire premise. Three times, you attempt to deny them, and three times, you're left with egg on your face.
If anyone can provide a verifiable account of a small arm (rifle, pistol ((caliber under .75 or roughly 14mm, shotgun) doing any serious meaningful damage to a tank in real life combat I will completely drop the argument.
Holy mother of all goalpost shifting. You're not arguing in any faith at all!
the flames did not penetrate the armor, nor did they heat the vehicle enough to do anything.
The whole regiment was touched by the saint.
The saint spoke to gaunt via a dead sororitas twice. Literally requested gaunt and the ghosts to protect her…two ghosts were literally touched and healed by the saint…
413th Lucius Exterminaton Legion- 4,000pts 
