PDA

View Full Version : tanks: can they be balance against troops?



Victomorga
19-07-2010, 03:18
vehicle rules in 40k are particularly unrealistic; tanks can't roll through minor terrain features, traveling medium to short distances limits their firing capabilities, they can't usually fire at multiple targets, etc.

is there a way to reconcile tank strength with troops in 40K? is it impossible for game dynamics reasons, or is it impossible because it would mean tanks would be way more resilient, and thus people would buy fewer kits?

are there player-generated tank rules out there that are more realistic? how about non-GW kits that work as good substitutes for GW tanks (before or after conversion)?

starlight
19-07-2010, 04:03
Accept that 40K is a *game*, not a *simulator* and have some fun with your mates. If 40K was more *realistic*, it wouldn't be playable in anything resembling it's current form.

Wrath
19-07-2010, 06:24
True, but they don't have to be as abstract as they are now.

omnivision6
19-07-2010, 06:27
True, but they don't have to be as abstract as they are now.

go play a historic or flames of war if you want less abstract. ill stick to my super human in powersuite, alien bug devourers, and psychic elves in space over germans and americans in tanks.

Wrath
19-07-2010, 06:30
go play a historic or flames of war if you want less abstract. ill stick to my super human in powersuite, alien bug devourers, and psychic elves in space over germans and americans in tanks.

which has nothing to do with the "tank" rules. <and btw I do plat FOW on a limited basis and the tank rules in it are WAY more abstract then 40K. I mean they jump out of the damned things every 5 seconds.>

omnivision6
19-07-2010, 06:34
jesus christ...im so tired of people trying to inject realism in a game of plastic toys with dice rolling. just play the game and have fun, dont like it, stop crying and dont play.

BTW track tanks (which i drove and USED in REAL combat) cant go through too many different types of terrain, they will throw tack and be screwed. Firing on the move is something that light anti-personel vehicle do, not tanks. the only tank that does, in american arsinal anyway, is an Abrahms.

this is supposed to be super advanced future stuff, so if it went for realism we would not need to roll to hit, as all ammo would be guided by computers and such. and their would be no people fighting, just remote controlled stuff. sound too fake? so does everything else in 40k

just roll dice and have a laugh.

Enfid
19-07-2010, 06:48
I'm no military expert, but I'm pretty sure there's a reason infantry is still used until today and you don't see tanks rolling all over the place.

I think tanks can be vulnerable to infantry in an indirect way. It's not difficult to see/hear tanks coming from a km away, for example. Infantry with an RPG, now that's another matter. Infantry can maximize the use of cover, and I feel that infantry is a must in urban warfare. Also, I like the 'infantry attacking rear armor value of vehicles' in the current edition, seeing that tanks are, in fact, vulnerable to close infantry assault, where they can shoot through vision slits, drop grenades into port holes, or just strapping bombs to tracks or weapons. IIRC, infantry need to accompany tanks especially in urban warfare, to guard the tanks against such assaults.

In open field, on the other hand, tanks are basically moving pillboxes. In my idea, only other tanks or dedicated tank hunter infantry in cover can hope to take it out. As to how many shots it takes from an anti-tank rocket/missile to take down a tank, I have no clue, so I don't know if this is well represented in the game or not.

In my opinion, I think they can afford to make tanks slightly more powerful (eg. driving through minor terrain or splitting fire), but transport less so (eg. limit the "fire ports", or don't have any at all). In the current time, infantry in transport in some armies can do more damage than a battle tank.

My idea is that tanks are significantly less powerful in highly dense terrain like in city fight or, The Emperor forbid, jungle fights, but you almost never see games like those played because of the number of terrain needed. However, I think games like those change the dynamics of the game significantly.

EDIT: Also it occurs to me that tanks can be taken out by airstrikes, something that a normal game of 40k lack, which makes tanks appear more powerful than they really are.

All personal speculation, but makes sense as far as I think about them. Ofcourse feel free to object if I'm clearly wrong.

Wrath
19-07-2010, 06:59
jesus christ...im so tired of people trying to inject realism in a game of plastic toys with dice rolling. just play the game and have fun, dont like it, stop crying and dont play.

Calm down, take your pills it will be ok, and I have stopped playing actually. I have moved on to much more balanced rule systems. However, it is my party and I will cry if I want to.



BTW track tanks (which i drove and USED in REAL combat) cant go through too many different types of terrain, they will throw tack and be screwed. Firing on the move is something that light anti-personel vehicle do, not tanks. the only tank that does, in american arsinal anyway, is an Abrahms.


This is in fact a huge misconception most who are not in the military make. Tracks are very fickle things, if you keep moving strait you can cruise over quite a few things. However, when turning even mud can make you to throw a track. It isn't that a tank Can't go through obstacles it is just that no one is stupid enough to risk everyones life on board for something as silly as trucking through that pit of <insert obviously dangerous materials here>.



this is supposed to be super advanced future stuff, so if it went for realism we would not need to roll to hit, as all ammo would be guided by computers and such. and their would be no people fighting, just remote controlled stuff. sound too fake? so does everything else in 40k

just roll dice and have a laugh.

lol, dunno how "super advanced" Laser rifles are, the batteries are probably AWESOME. if it were as advanced as you say it would all be Hover vehicles and dark matter weaponry. It isn't because it is "Gothic" or space fantasy or what ever term they are using now.

None of which means that the Vehicle rules cannot be improved...

Also I would like to introduce you this place, this
<------------------------is a forum--------------------->
and we talk about things like this because we like to

Wrath
19-07-2010, 07:32
In open field, on the other hand, tanks are basically moving pillboxes. In my idea, only other tanks or dedicated tank hunter infantry in cover can hope to take it out. As to how many shots it takes from an anti-tank rocket/missile to take down a tank, I have no clue, so I don't know if this is well represented in the game or not.


How easy it is to take a tank out really depends on the munitions used and location hit... ok to be honest it pretty much sucks getting hit anywhere.



In my opinion, I think they can afford to make tanks slightly more powerful (eg. driving through minor terrain or splitting fire), but transport less so (eg. limit the "fire ports", or don't have any at all). In the current time, infantry in transport in some armies can do more damage than a battle tank.


This, IMO, is the biggest difference between a modern tank and a 40K tank. There are soooo many gunners in a 40K tank. I can definitely see the pro arguments for splitting fire but I have no idea how they would actually coordinate it.

I would like to see GW reduce the number of heavy weapons and increase there effectiveness. This would make vehicles more attractive while also upping their power at the same time.

I don't mind Fire ports but I would like to see a drawback to their use. I would advocate making the vehicle open topped on any turn that anyone inside uses a fireport.



My idea is that tanks are significantly less powerful in highly dense terrain like in city fight or, The Emperor forbid, jungle fights, but you almost never see games like those played because of the number of terrain needed. However, I think games like those change the dynamics of the game significantly.


Completely true, the amount of cover incoming infantry has is a HUGE detriment to vehicles. It usually means that a lot more attacks get your your rear armor. Unfortunately this is a failing on us the gamer more then GW. They put the expansions out for us, if we don't use them...



EDIT: Also it occurs to me that tanks can be taken out by airstrikes, something that a normal game of 40k lack, which makes tanks appear more powerful than they really are.


I would really like to see more off-board artillery and air strikes. This is such a huge part of modern combat, and from reading Battle fleet Gothic fluff it sounds like it should still be a huge part. Dunno if orbiting ships should be able to take part or not, they sound more strategic asset then tactical, but you might be able to squeeze them in with a kind of preliminary barrage like the old 2nd edition strategy card. <although with the size of the guns on those beasts it should be called "preliminary ruining".>



All personal speculation, but makes sense as far as I think about them. Ofcourse feel free to object if I'm clearly wrong.

I agree with most of what you say.
I really feel that GW could go deeper with the rules, I mean this is a 28mm scale game. If it were 15mm I would have no issues at all, it would be designed for quick game play with large numbers of minis. Unless you really try a 1850pt game is not going to give you a ton of troops or vehicles, chose tourny points not sure what everyone else plays. I need some meat on those bones.

ehlijen
19-07-2010, 09:59
If the tanks where made to be more flexible than they currently are, their points would have to go up. If that happens, the owners will want their resilience to go up as well. Should that happen we're looking at every tank costing around the 250-300 points mark and they'll start turning the game into 'tanks + small change' matches and that's not what GW wanted when it made troops scoring only.

Tanks in 40k are meant to fill a support role. To keep their costs reasonable while still keeping them useful, certain restrictions were put in place. And I find the game better without every vehicle basically being a light superheavy.

Zweischneid
19-07-2010, 10:19
Well, I s'pose it would be possible to make tanks more "realistic" in the vein of your recommendation and than "balance" them by simply making them ... say.. 5 or 10 times more expensive in point values.

But then GW wouldn't sell only 1/5 or 1/10 of its tank-kits and that wouldn't be a smart move commercially I s'pose.

CrownAxe
19-07-2010, 10:23
True, but they don't have to be as abstract as they are now.

They don't have to be as realistic as you expect them to be either.

Pyriel
19-07-2010, 15:33
realism is not the question. but it would be nice if *abstractly* they had the same characteristics, advantages/disadvantages as normal, so that infantry can be valuable.

the thing is, 40k fails in one thing: normaly, while tanks do ignore most small arms and even some artillery, anti-tank weapons and long-range weapons hit them more easily.

yup: they are actualy *easier to hit*. electronics and guided missiles rule the battlefield, and guess who has higher electronics signature-a tank, or a hidden platoon of personnel?
and see, thats the thing; in 40k, electronics and guidance systems arent typicaly used, the universe and setting is kinda technophobic. (yup... in this aspect, real world is FAR more advanced in technology; Infrared0guided missiles, radar-guided missiles, pulse doppler radars, Electronic Counter-Measures, Electronic Counter-CounterMeasures, etc; the heavy weapons aspect of modern warfare is HIGHLY digitalized and computerized) so i'd say they are portraed OK, given that technophobia.

now, if weapons *were* assumed to use electronic/IR signatures and the like for target lock, i'd say units, including anti-tank ones, should get +2 BS vs vehicles(and otherwise vehicles as tough as now, not fragile like 4th). i think that would even things out a bit. it would be both realistic, AND would make footsloggers more viable-having AV 11 and firing from rhino's top hatch isnt as safe as before when now missiles of mere imperial guard hit on 2+!!!(and realy, how could they miss? the tank *is* target-locked afterall, the low starting BS of the model, any model, should be next-to-irrelevant given that). it would also keep things quite simple. just ONE BS modifier.

Bestaltan
19-07-2010, 16:07
If we want tank realism.....

Every tank has to roll on a d6 at the start of every movement phase. On a 1-2 the tank has broken down and must wait until the end of the game to be repaired while the motor pool takes its sweet time bringing the heavy equipment out to the battlefield. ;)

All tanks above 150 points, being more advanced and powerful, instead break down on a 1-3, as I swear they break down more often. ;)

AndrewGPaul
19-07-2010, 16:51
The thread title is asking a different question to the body of the text. To answer the post, yes, vehicles could use the same set of rules as regular models. Tyranids and Eldar demonstrate it's possible with the former's variety of monstrous creatures and the latter's Wraithlords. Citadel Journals 10 and 11 had a set of playtest rues for vehicles in 2nd edition which gave them a normal stat line, as well as some special damage rules (which could be used against anything with multiple Wounds). Sadly, that was mere months before 3rd edition, so nothing ever came of them.

To answer the thread title, no, tanks shouldn't be "balance[d] against troops". In the open, an armoured force should shred an infantry force at range, while in urban or other dense terrain, tanks should get soundly trounced by infantry. That's basically how it works, and is one of the reasons infantry have APCs and tanks like infantry screens in towns.

barrangas
19-07-2010, 17:18
If 40k was more like modern warfare, tanks would be secondary compared aircraft. Every one would be playing Tau at that point.

Bestaltan
19-07-2010, 17:28
If 40k was more like modern warfare, tanks would be secondary compared aircraft. Every one would be playing Tau at that point.

Actually, the T'au can't really claim air superiority in terms of technology. A lot of the fluff from FW tells that Imperial pilots can go toe-to-toe with T'au, and may even have a slight advantage to them in terms of pilot abilities.

But yea, don't get me started on aircraft in Apocalypse.......

AndrewGPaul
19-07-2010, 17:48
Tau? Eldar, more like. Looking at some of the artwork, there doesn't seem to be a sharp dividing line between Eldar tanks and aircraft. The art shows Falcons operating at quite high altitude - a true flyer rather than a skimmer.

A Barracuda or Tiger Shark may be faster, but an Engine of Vaul has better armour and bigger guns. :)

ThankGoodness4Ebay
19-07-2010, 17:53
I have to agree with the first post, I do think there could be a better balance, however I would like to see the said 'balance' be more extreme; Infantry close to tank = dead tank. Tank on top of hill = dead infantry when leaving cover. Tank on Hill seen by another tank = dead tank.

I agree that the mechanics of vehicles should be abstract and aid the game (i.e. be quick and easy to understand and implement) but I also think that the vehicle rules leave something to be desired. As with most things though I don't have a workable solution (doesn't stop the Daily Mail though).

barrangas
19-07-2010, 19:27
Actually, the T'au can't really claim air superiority in terms of technology. A lot of the fluff from FW tells that Imperial pilots can go toe-to-toe with T'au, and may even have a slight advantage to them in terms of pilot abilities.

But yea, don't get me started on aircraft in Apocalypse.......


Tau? Eldar, more like. Looking at some of the artwork, there doesn't seem to be a sharp dividing line between Eldar tanks and aircraft. The art shows Falcons operating at quite high altitude - a true flyer rather than a skimmer.

A Barracuda or Tiger Shark may be faster, but an Engine of Vaul has better armour and bigger guns. :)


I'm referring to the Tau's play style. They have squads that light up targets for heavy support, don't use Titans, and all their heavies are aircraft. The Hammerheads and Devil Fish remind me more of Helicopters rather then tanks.

Tau play style is closer to modern military style then any other army in 40k IMO.

DeadlySquirrel
19-07-2010, 19:34
True, but they don't have to be as abstract as they are now.

Its the year 40,000. There are planet eating space bugs, GODS of EVILLL!, GODS fullstop, hordes of green fungus that stomp stuff, million year old metal skeletons etc etc etc.

its SCI-FI... as in not real?

Wrath
19-07-2010, 20:16
They don't have to be as realistic as you expect them to be either.

Wow, considering I havn't said how I would change the tank rules you are good. Telepathy run in the family?


I have to agree with the first post, I do think there could be a better balance, however I would like to see the said 'balance' be more extreme; Infantry close to tank = dead tank. Tank on top of hill = dead infantry when leaving cover. Tank on Hill seen by another tank = dead tank.

I agree that the mechanics of vehicles should be abstract and aid the game (i.e. be quick and easy to understand and implement) but I also think that the vehicle rules leave something to be desired. As with most things though I don't have a workable solution (doesn't stop the Daily Mail though).

you nailed it here. The engagement range of a tank unfortunately cannot be simulated in the current scale. 1in ~ 1.5 meters. In desert storm there were engagements out to 4000 meters. That would be in the neighborhood of 2700" at 28mm. Admittedly this was against armored targets, large profiles, but tanks really aren't mean to engage infantry directly, that is why you bring infantry. More for shelling the buildings they are in.

I agree with the premise but I just don't see how to adjust the rules to accomplish the necessary balance. <without chaging the entire core set to a different system>


Its the year 40,000. There are planet eating space bugs, GODS of EVILLL!, GODS fullstop, hordes of green fungus that stomp stuff, million year old metal skeletons etc etc etc.

its SCI-FI... as in not real?

... you mean >>SCIENCE<< (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&defl=en&q=define:science+fiction&sa=X&ei=2qBETP6eM4Wdlge5rNS5Dg&ved=0CBgQkAE) fiction? because I see that it is based on science... :wtf:

Look this discussion is going no where. only 2 or 3 posters have even talk about the subject. The rest have just been spouting inane rambling about how something they cannot understand is an obvious reason to not change a concept that is very grounded in the real.

MegaPope
19-07-2010, 20:41
In game terms, what stymies gun tanks the most is their inability to provide protected MOBILE firepower - which is precisely why they were invented in the first place.

I'm not saying tanks should be zipping all over the place at the speed of light - 40K's battle ranges portray exactly the kind of situation that tank crews were warned NOT to get into if they could avoid it - or cross terrain with total impunity - a strong enough hedgerow could immobilise a Tiger, after all.

I'm not even bothered about having to focus all fire on one unit, although the ability to split fire for weapons that cannot see the primary target would be nice. What I think all 'tanks' should share is the ability to move up to 6" and fire ALL their weapons - exactly per the kind of mobile heavy support they should be providing. To some extent the Spearhead rules are beginning to allow for things like this.

ThankGoodness4Ebay
19-07-2010, 20:58
I agree with Megapope's last paragraph. Whilst gaming balance has to be achieved, the restrictions on the firing of vehicles (particularly when the fluff states that most weapon mounts have their own crew) seems counter-intuitive.

My first question would be, how to free up vehicles firing and moving whilst maintaining game balance?

My second question (as an inexperienced player) is how would you rate the vehicle rules with regards transports and the transporting of troops? Arguably at the 40k (not apocalypse) scale transports are the main vehicle type, and if the game balance works well for these types of vehicle perhaps an adjustment for purely offensive vehicles would need more subtlety?

metal bawks
19-07-2010, 21:53
I'm not even bothered about having to focus all fire on one unit, although the ability to split fire for weapons that cannot see the primary target would be nice. What I think all 'tanks' should share is the ability to move up to 6" and fire ALL their weapons - exactly per the kind of mobile heavy support they should be providing. To some extent the Spearhead rules are beginning to allow for things like this.

Agree 100%. The basic idea of a tank is to provide mobilefirepower. In the current rules they're basically pillboxes.

To all the people saying it doesn't matter because it's fiction: if something in 40k is called a "tank", then I expect it to somehow resemble our real-world concepts of the same. If it doesn't, then why is it called a "tank" in the first place?

Charistoph
19-07-2010, 22:30
Agree 100%. The basic idea of a tank is to provide mobilefirepower. In the current rules they're basically pillboxes.

To all the people saying it doesn't matter because it's fiction: if something in 40k is called a "tank", then I expect it to somehow resemble our real-world concepts of the same. If it doesn't, then why is it called a "tank" in the first place?

A 40K "Tank" just means it can run people over, but I agree with your point.

Wasn't there an old rule that reduced a vehicle's speed if it had sponsons?

omnivision6
19-07-2010, 23:54
Look this discussion is going no where. only 2 or 3 posters have even talk about the subject. The rest have just been spouting inane rambling about how something they cannot understand is an obvious reason to not change a concept that is very grounded in the real.


is their an ignore function on this forum?

I found it.

this message is hidden because Wrath is on your ignore list.

Bookwrak
19-07-2010, 23:57
Yes, click on the user name, go to their profile, and then click on the 'user lists' drop down menu.

ehlijen
20-07-2010, 07:08
Tanks not getting to shoot more weapons on the move is not because they don't get to fire, it's because the vehicle only has one driver who can coordinate with the gunners. The driver tries to provide one gunner with a good target throughout the move, the rest have to make do with unexpectedly shifting view arcs and a bumpy ride.

Modern tanks do that. You'll note that they do not have sponsons, nor do they engage most targets with more than one weapon at a time, unless it's the machine guns (ie defensive weapons).

Tanks do provide mobile protected firepower in 40k. They are immune to S3 weapons, often more, and can fire heavy and ordnance weapons after moving. Infantry cannot do those things. I do not see the need to change their role on the table change drastically.

The Highlander
20-07-2010, 12:43
As to how many shots it takes from an anti-tank rocket/missile to take down a tank, I have no clue, so I don't know if this is well represented in the game or not.

Realistically, itís down to luck. Remember that tanks are armoured boxes containing plenty of ammo, fuel, delicate electronic and mechanical systems and soft fleshy crew. If a shot manages to get thought the amour then it has a good chance to do some serious damage, from smashing up systems/crewmen (which would put weapons out of action) to touching off the ammo, (which would result in the tank being blown to bits). I think that the current system of damage is fairly good, making it much more realistic would slow things down to much and create lots of confusion.

Wade Wilson
20-07-2010, 13:26
I think for simplicitys sake the current rules for tanks work pretty well. Remember 2nd edition when every different vehicle had a damage card when different areas of the tank were hit each with their own damage tables (including the crew). It used to take forever.

That said, it is a shame that different vehicle weapons cannot fire at seperate targets if they are manned by a seperate crew member (as it used to be with side sponsons).

omnivision6
20-07-2010, 13:33
Realistically, itís down to luck. Remember that tanks are armoured boxes containing plenty of ammo, fuel, delicate electronic and mechanical systems and soft fleshy crew. If a shot manages to get thought the amour then it has a good chance to do some serious damage, from smashing up systems/crewmen (which would put weapons out of action) to touching off the ammo, (which would result in the tank being blown to bits). I think that the current system of damage is fairly good, making it much more realistic would slow things down to much and create lots of confusion.

this is not right. the most dangerous thing a tank crew must face is dismounted infantry with anti armor weapons. look on youtube for a javelin, it tears tanks up.

infantry assaulting a vehicle is another thing. if the tank is buttoned up they can use incendiary grenades to melt it or if the doors are foolishly left unlocked, well you get the point.

infantry=bad for tank

Bestaltan
20-07-2010, 13:38
Which is exactly why GW had the epiphany of having assaults against tanks hit against rear armor in this edition, to simulate that some tanks are highly vulnerable to infantry.

The Highlander
20-07-2010, 20:39
this is not right. the most dangerous thing a tank crew must face is dismounted infantry with anti armour weapons. look on youtube for a javelin, it tears tanks up.

The reason why javelins tear up tanks is because they attack from above with two shaped charges, the first of which punches though the thin top amour and the second of which explodes inside, gutting it. My point still stands, the effect of a penetration on a tank (especially a solid projectile) is entirely depended on the location of the hit. Hit in one spot and you eviscerate the gunner and detonate the ammunition destroying the tank. Hit a foot away and the shot misses everyone inside the tank and slams into the back to the turret, leading to a few minutes of chaos as the crew recover and repair damaged systems.

The point I was making is that it is just as realistic that a tank can be taken out in one shot as for it to withstand multiple impacts without lasting damage. This is exactly the sort of system that 40K uses and I think it makes a good job of it.

omnivision6
20-07-2010, 21:11
The reason why javelins tear up tanks is because they attack from above with two shaped charges, the first of which punches though the thin top amour and the second of which explodes inside, gutting it. My point still stands, the effect of a penetration on a tank (especially a solid projectile) is entirely depended on the location of the hit. Hit in one spot and you eviscerate the gunner and detonate the ammunition destroying the tank. Hit a foot away and the shot misses everyone inside the tank and slams into the back to the turret, leading to a few minutes of chaos as the crew recover and repair damaged systems.

The point I was making is that it is just as realistic that a tank can be taken out in one shot as for it to withstand multiple impacts without lasting damage. This is exactly the sort of system that 40K uses and I think it makes a good job of it.

to be completely honest good sir I did not read your whole post :p. i agree that it is a good representation of actual fighting. the only problem i personally have with that is that this is a fake sci fi game, not a historical game. i liked the 4th ed way of terrain and vehicles. just my personal taste.

jsullivanlaw
20-07-2010, 21:34
vehicle rules in 40k are particularly unrealistic; tanks can't roll through minor terrain features, traveling medium to short distances limits their firing capabilities, they can't usually fire at multiple targets, etc.

is there a way to reconcile tank strength with troops in 40K? is it impossible for game dynamics reasons, or is it impossible because it would mean tanks would be way more resilient, and thus people would buy fewer kits?

are there player-generated tank rules out there that are more realistic? how about non-GW kits that work as good substitutes for GW tanks (before or after conversion)?


Tanks can go through minor terrain features, just not impassible terrain. Impassible terrain is decided by players and is usually something that you can't set a model on. 99% of terrain i play with allows tanks to drive over it, even if it is something rediculuous where the tank sits slanted on top some some terrain piece. You know a tank can drive over a wreck right? They are difficult and dangerous, not impassible. So a chimera could drive over a dead land raider. And yes, tanks can lose there tracks in rough terrain, as represented by the dangerous terrain roll.

Enfid
21-07-2010, 01:38
I found the system used in Warmachine with the damage grid very clever, but may be a bit hectic for medium-large scale game like 40k. I'm just throwing it out there for reference, as the mentioned 2nd edition tank rules was mentioned.

Apart from a few obvious things (like splitting fire and some changes to number of weapons fired while moving), I'm thinking if terrain in a standard game of 40k plays a part in the role of tanks in the game. Say if it's true that effectiveness of tanks are severely limited in Cityfights, then would it benefit the standard game's terrain to be open space in one part, then clusters of terrain in another for infantry to fight over? As of now, games of 40k involves spots of terrain that seems rather unnatural to apply modern warfare tactics to anyway.

ehlijen
21-07-2010, 03:43
Wow, considering I havn't said how I would change the tank rules you are good. Telepathy run in the family?



To be fair, the specific nature of the points you brought up heavily implied your wish for certain changes. Maybe not the exact nature, but the basic gist.

barrangas
21-07-2010, 06:13
Realistically, itís down to luck. Remember that tanks are armoured boxes containing plenty of ammo, fuel, delicate electronic and mechanical systems and soft fleshy crew. If a shot manages to get thought the amour then it has a good chance to do some serious damage, from smashing up systems/crewmen (which would put weapons out of action) to touching off the ammo, (which would result in the tank being blown to bits). I think that the current system of damage is fairly good, making it much more realistic would slow things down to much and create lots of confusion.

Actually most modern armored vehicles are designed to protect the crew from taking damage from hits. I remembered reading about this one particular event from Kuwait but couldn't remember where until some one posted it on another thread:


Actually, combat vehicles these days have a lot of safety features to protect passengers/crew in the event of their track getting destroyed. There's a documented case of an M1A1 Abrams getting stuck during Desert Storm. Read about it in Tom Clancy's nonfiction book, Armored Cav. The recovery vehicle couldn't get it unstuck, so the platoon commander was ordered to abandon the tank and destroy it. They had trouble getting shots to penetrate, and when they finally did manage to hole the armor, when the ammo cooked off the blowout panels vented the force of the blast away from where the crew would have been. By that point, another recovery vehicle showed up, and between the two of them they were able to recover the tank. When they examined it, they found it to be basically functional. Some minor repairs were all it took to put it back in action. That's a modern day vehicle.

If I remember correctly It also had to fend of 3 1950s era T-34s while stuck, and destroyed them (the last by using thermoptics to shoot through a sand dune IIRC).

All in all I will agree with you though, the system currently has a ok and simple way for dealing with vehicles. I wouldn't mind splitting fire, but that goes for all units. Why can't the guy with the lascannon shot a tank while his buddies light up an advancing enemy squad?

Silent_Moebius
21-07-2010, 06:41
I would like to see Structure Points on them. On all Vehicles. One shot to kill a tank is a bit silly. They shouldn't get killed so easily. So, like MCs, they should get multiple "wounds".

GrogDaTyrant
21-07-2010, 07:10
I think vehicles are currently fine. There's a tendancy towards transports, but if Shaken results impaired the vehicle and embarked unit somehow, then I think the balance would be met...

Well, provided every army gets something that counts for Anti-Tank. Preferably something beyond Powerklaws and Deathrollas...

Pyriel
21-07-2010, 08:38
not realy. one shot *can* kill a tank, provided its lucky.you can shoot 20 120-mm shots at a tank and just glance it,or penetrate but just damage secondary systems, and you can shoot just one 105-mm shot with it striking true and hitting the ammo, blowing it up. i think the tank rules, abstract as they are, are very nice. the only thing they fail to represent is the "vehicles are easy to locate and target-lock with electronics" factor.

also keep in mind that infantry in 40k are very lightly-armed for their army's armament.
example: in my unit, the mere riflemen are... 3 per squad. the rest are *specialists*, like heavy weapon users(two per squad!not just one!), corporal, sergeant, communications, etc. we actualy have 3 grenade launchers and 2 missile launchers per squad.

US marines also typicaly have 2-3 machineguns per squad.

compared to that, in 40k infantry usualy have ONE special weapon, ONE heavy weapon, and ONE sergeant as command/ability-giving specialist. all rest are riflemen. guess what-while all are trained in rifles, *actual mere riflemen* do not form 70%+ of an army :P hence, infantry in 40k is underequipped (for their army's capabilities).

Pyriel
21-07-2010, 09:39
after chatting with another guy i know that also has been in the military and also plays 40k... we realised that the term "Troops" as "very basicaly equipped soldiers that have very few specialists" is something that only exists in GW's imagination :P irl, after boot camp/basic training, everyone gets sent to MOS to train in his specialty (and mere rifleman is very rarely his primary MOS...) and only AFTER that does he get sent on the field, assigned in a unit.

now, i can see how in GW's universe, this illogical and impractical type of unit , imaginery in their own minds, called "infantry with next-to-no specialists that contains nearly only riflemen" exists.

then its natural that one of two things will happen:
a) people will not play Troops and will fill their infantry with the likes of Devastators and Sternguard and Fire Dragons or other non-troops, making tanks less valuable but less than dominant.
b) ppl will be forced to play this , i repeat, impractical, illogical and imaginary unit type called Troop and tanks and other tough units will dominate because infantry does not have the specialists it should and is supposed to have.


b) is why mech rules now. a) is why elites ruled 4th. simple.