Warhammer 40k Forum and Wargaming Forums banner

1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
Ex Mod.
Joined
·
4,245 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
iv heard complaints all over the place abuot tanks being too weak. obviously some of the arguments are justified, but others arent. obvously, the landraider is supposed to be one of the hardest things the imperuim has, yet it can be knocked out by a stray missile.

would it be worth adding FW style structure points to the basic game, or simply lowering the cost of some vehicles? for example the new malcador superheavy has the same armour as a hellhound, and 2 structure points and costs the same roughly as an LRD making it so much more surviveable.

opinons?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
999 Posts
Armor is no ttoo weak. A krak missile is supposed to have a small chance of breaking a land raider. You can't expect to take tanks an have them be invincible. One needs to realize their purpose. They are not the end all be all of the game. Yes, they are powerful, but they have vulnerabilities. If you don't want to risk teh tank being blown up, then don't expose it.

It all comes down to how you use them. A predator is designed to sit behind a bit of terrain and shoot stuff. AWhirlwing or Basilisk is designed to sit along the back edge and bombard your opponent.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,445 Posts
If anything, some tanks are too powerful. *cough* eldar *cough*

But yeah, I agree, for the most power non-superheavy imperial tank, the LR sure does die fast.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10 Posts
krak missiles glancing on a 6 isn't really an issue as they are designed to pop armour.

I think melta guns can take down a land raider too easily though and with the new cheaper fire dragons and new ravenwing taking 10000 meltas I find myself thinking back to that salamander rule for tougher armour.
 

·
Porn King!!!
Joined
·
8,137 Posts
I feel that armour is a tad too weak. Tanks die far too easily to things not designed to kill them at times. I think the problem is just the damage tables myself and it could be easily fixed by altering them a bit. IMHO, a glancing hit should NEVER destroy a vehicle. It did only glance after all. Perhaps a roll of glancing 6 should allow a roll on the pen table? I also don't like the idea that a minor glancing hit will prevent a tank from firing for a turn. Just doesn't make sense.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
221 Posts
I'm going to play devil's advocate here and say that for the cost, armour is far too weak. It's another problem with streamlining. I never played any other edition other than 4th, but if I remember correctly, and someone can confirm this, each vehicle used to have its own damage table. That makes sense, because let's face it, with a lucky lascannon shot, it's the same exact thing to blow up a Sentinel as it is a Land Raider. And that's just not right.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
43 Posts
the orks trukks for Throne sake frount of 10.

but i do have to say mainly i think armor is good because i think one shot one kill. for e.g WWII tanks could be stoped by a sniper with a shot though the slit in the tanks for the driver to see. why should it not be the same for 40K hay?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
76 Posts
An invulnerable save would probably counter a lot of the problems.

AR 10 - no save
AR 11 - 6 save
AR 12 - 5 save
AR 13 - 4 save
AR 14 - 3 save

vehicles moving over 12" get a rerolled save
Skimmers get a rerolled save. - lose the current skimmer glance only rule.
 

·
Jac "Baneblade" O'Bite
Joined
·
8,082 Posts
I do like Wraiths idea and Antiochs, they both raise very good points.

I saw the rules for the Malacador and thought its armour value was pants considering how the model looks and the fact that it is considered a super heavy.

I think the transport rules are pretty good but battle tank rules need to be revised.
 

·
Jac "Baneblade" O'Bite
Joined
·
8,082 Posts
Point, I was meaning the amount of armour and the destroying vechile rules.

My bad I should have made myself clearer.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
372 Posts
The Wraithlord said:
IMHO, a glancing hit should NEVER destroy a vehicle. It did only glance after all.
That I definitely agree with. It seems highly illogical that a glacing hit should destroy a tank, no matter how freakish and unlikely.

On the other hand, tanks seem to be everywhere in today's game (a sharp contrast to when I last played), and I'm not sure I'd want them to become any tougher, because then they'd really take over.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,445 Posts
The Wraithlord said:
I feel that armour is a tad too weak. Tanks die far too easily to things not designed to kill them at times.
Like firing fifteen psycannon shots at a leman russ's side armor and blowing it to Hades? :D (That actually happened; my friend blew his stack!)
 

·
Jac "Baneblade" O'Bite
Joined
·
8,082 Posts
I'm taking it the Psycannon shots were done at the closer range stat line?, if not how on earth did the guy get 15 psycannons in his army?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,602 Posts
I don't think armour is too weak[in general] for its points.
FIrstly Krak missiles. They are an anti-tank weapon, if they couldn't kill a landraider then i'd be pretty worried.
Tanks can move and shoot heavy weapons. Many people underestimate the value of this. Movement is a very important factor in 40k and the ability to start behind cover and not be shot at all on the first turn, then come out from behind cover and let rip should not be overlooked.
Tanks are often cheap. Lets look at a predator. for a few points more than a 7 man tactical squad you can have a twin-linked lascannon and 2 heavybolters. for less than a 6 man tactical you can get a dred with assaultcannon, one of the best heavy weapons in the game.
Tanks are reliable. Often vechiles will have twin-linked weaponry. more likely to do what you want it to. Yippee
Tanks are partially invulnerable. Anything with an armour value is partially invulnerable to certain weapons. you could take a pred or leman russ and it be immune to 80% of your opponents army. Great now you only have 20% to avoid/destroy with your vechile to stay alive
Tanks can give you acess to weaponry you wouldn't normally get. Battlecannons, whirlwinds, infernocannons, prisms, pulselasers etc...

IMO armour is not weak.
 

·
Porn King!!!
Joined
·
8,137 Posts
I think I shall engage in a rebuttal Jig :)

jigplums said:
I don't think armour is too weak[in general] for its points.
FIrstly Krak missiles. They are an anti-tank weapon, if they couldn't kill a landraider then i'd be pretty worried.

I agree and there aren't an overabundance of these so no problems there

Tanks can move and shoot heavy weapons. Many people underestimate the value of this. Movement is a very important factor in 40k and the ability to start behind cover and not be shot at all on the first turn, then come out from behind cover and let rip should not be overlooked.

True but in general this doesn't happen as you have to mix roles for the tank to do so. Taking all heavy weapons for anti armour means you can only shoot one and move. Taking anti troop weapons on a vehicle that has anti tank for its main weapon means that 90% of the time you won't be firing 3/4 of the weapons as they don't hurt armour OR that the anti tank shot is being wasted for the most part by being shot at a unit that it wasn't designed to hurt. Now taking all anti infantry weapons is available for the most part but most people take tanks for their vehicle killing ability. So this isn't as great a thing as it seems. The only exception is the Tau vehicles that can shoot multiple targets

Tanks are often cheap. Lets look at a predator. for a few points more than a 7 man tactical squad you can have a twin-linked lascannon and 2 heavybolters. for less than a 6 man tactical you can get a dred with assaultcannon, one of the best heavy weapons in the game.

True, no real arguement here. I do stand by my opinion that dreads are useless point sinks however lol.

Tanks are reliable. Often vechiles will have twin-linked weaponry. more likely to do what you want it to. Yippee

Again, true. No arguements here.

Tanks are partially invulnerable. Anything with an armour value is partially invulnerable to certain weapons. you could take a pred or leman russ and it be immune to 80% of your opponents army. Great now you only have 20% to avoid/destroy with your vechile to stay alive.

Partially true but the sheer amount of anti tank weaponry fielded in most armies negates this.

Tanks can give you acess to weaponry you wouldn't normally get. Battlecannons, whirlwinds, infernocannons, prisms, pulselasers etc...

Absolutely true. This is why we take them

IMO armour is not weak.

Can't agree here. Tanks die very very easily or at the least are rendered useless over and over by a single glancing hit. Penetrating hits SHOULD be devastating just by their nature but not a glancing hit. Not in any way, shape, or form. Just because a rocket deflects off the hull does not mean that the crew inside are suddenly incapable of firing their weapon. All they have heard is a large noise outside the tank so I can't see how that would stop the commander from pulling the trigger on his weapon. If they were to do away with shaken and stunned and make it only on higher glancing rolls (not to mention removing the glancing Destroyed result, armour in the game would still be as killable as now but would no longer be as easily marginallized.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,602 Posts
The Wraithlord said:
I think I shall engage in a rebuttal Jig :)

excellent time for a little debate :)

jigplums said:
Tanks can move and shoot heavy weapons. Many people underestimate the value of this. Movement is a very important factor in 40k and the ability to start behind cover and not be shot at all on the first turn, then come out from behind cover and let rip should not be overlooked.

True but in general this doesn't happen as you have to mix roles for the tank to do so. Taking all heavy weapons for anti armour means you can only shoot one and move. Taking anti troop weapons on a vehicle that has anti tank for its main weapon means that 90% of the time you won't be firing 3/4 of the weapons as they don't hurt armour OR that the anti tank shot is being wasted for the most part by being shot at a unit that it wasn't designed to hurt. Now taking all anti infantry weapons is available for the most part but most people take tanks for their vehicle killing ability. So this isn't as great a thing as it seems. The only exception is the Tau vehicles that can shoot multiple targets

Good point, however this is no different to the equivilent points going into infantry. Lets say we have a 7 man tactical squad with lascannon, plasmagun and 5 bolters vs a pred with twin-linked lascannon and heavybolters. If you fire the lascannon and plasmagun at a tank, you have wasted the bolters, if you fire at infantry the lascannon/plasmagun is overkill. The heavybolter is in most instances better at anti-infantry than the bolters, with more range str and ap. If you come against a low armour target like a sentinel, landspeeder vyper, piranah or rhino or even the rear or side of a tank then the hvybolters aren't to shabby. If you feel enemy armour is the biggest threat you can spend the first few turn neutralising that and then go onto infantry in the later turns. Plus you have the movement to be affective. You can deal with threat on one side of the board and then manauvre to get the otherside, with your extra range meaning you can often get a shot off everyturn.

Tanks are often cheap. Lets look at a predator. for a few points more than a 7 man tactical squad you can have a twin-linked lascannon and 2 heavybolters. for less than a 6 man tactical you can get a dred with assaultcannon, one of the best heavy weapons in the game.

True, no real arguement here. I do stand by my opinion that dreads are useless point sinks however lol.

I disagree, for the points I think they are an extremely worthy investment. Bearing in mind they are an elite choice so don't stop you taking the heavier armour out. Against some opps they are awesome to get into combat with and again they can lay down a heavy stream of fire whilst they advance. They are an ideal countercharge unit and can even instant kill a Daemonprince :). Drop pod them in for best results :) The only time i think they dont do so well is in escalation, but if they have gone for the lascannon and or ml then its not too bad. Plus they can fire 2 heavyweapons whilst moving. Venerable dreds are more survivable than a heavier tank in general and gives you access to tankhunter or furious charge. STR 10 twinlinked lascannon anyone? str7 assault cannon. Very compitant anti-armour there imo. plus the thing to remember is what can you take instead for the same points? For a standar dred your looking at 5/6 marines.

Tanks are partially invulnerable. Anything with an armour value is partially invulnerable to certain weapons. you could take a pred or leman russ and it be immune to 80% of your opponents army. Great now you only have 20% to avoid/destroy with your vechile to stay alive.

Partially true but the sheer amount of anti tank weaponry fielded in most armies negates this.

here comes the rock, paper, sissors analogy. If your opp loads out on anti-tank take all infantry for a few games. Then see him waste all those railgun/lasannon shots. Then, when he's started to adapt a bit throw in the armour again and see how he copes.

Can't agree here. Tanks die very very easily or at the least are rendered useless over and over by a single glancing hit. Penetrating hits SHOULD be devastating just by their nature but not a glancing hit. Not in any way, shape, or form. Just because a rocket deflects off the hull does not mean that the crew inside are suddenly incapable of firing their weapon. All they have heard is a large noise outside the tank so I can't see how that would stop the commander from pulling the trigger on his weapon. If they were to do away with shaken and stunned and make it only on higher glancing rolls (not to mention removing the glancing Destroyed result, armour in the game would still be as killable as now but would no longer be as easily marginallized.
Like anything its the way you use them that counts. Reduce los as much as possible so you get the least return fire, pick your targets based on minimising the affectiveness of your opp's army. Always start behind cover if possible, when you present targets present lots of targets. Remember to divide and conquer. if a tank cant shoot for a turn go 12" reducing los using cover as much as possible and blow smokes, always try to have your front armour facing the enemy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,445 Posts
Jacobite said:
I'm taking it the Psycannon shots were done at the closer range stat line?, if not how on earth did the guy get 15 psycannons in his army?
1 purgation squad w/ psycannons can pump out fifteen shots per turn. They're Heavy/Assault 3, depending on how they're configured.
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Top