Warhammer 40k Forum and Wargaming Forums banner
1 - 2 of 2 Posts

· Porn King!!!
Joined
·
8,130 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.
 

· Porn King!!!
Joined
·
8,130 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.
 
1 - 2 of 2 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top