PDA

View Full Version : question about 40k tanks



rickie8437
10-04-2007, 22:12
i was thinking to day as i was reading the new soul drinkers novel

if tanks in 40k are so good, as in apc's, why in the game are they so crap

like rhinos, who in there right mind would put a unit of marines in a tin can like that when small arms fire (bolters) can take it out

my question is what gives? are tanks as good as they are in the novels, or just as bad as they are in the game.

it just looks like there are better weopons out there than their is good tanks

rick

Vesica
11-04-2007, 00:53
i agree, rhinos arnt the best apcs. they are pretty cheap tho

RapidKiller
11-04-2007, 01:06
i was thinking to day as i was reading the new soul drinkers novel

if tanks in 40k are so good, as in apc's, why in the game are they so crap

like rhinos, who in there right mind would put a unit of marines in a tin can like that when small arms fire (bolters) can take it out

my question is what gives? are tanks as good as they are in the novels, or just as bad as they are in the game.

it just looks like there are better weopons out there than their is good tanks

rick

firstly bolters cant destroy a rhino unless its showing its rear end with a big sign saying "SHOOT ME! SHOOT ME!"

secondly bolters are not small arms fire. the fire self propelled rockets.

so rhinos are not thar and other apcs arnt that bad. show me one apc that sucks

MrP
11-04-2007, 01:41
I think parallels can be drawn with RL. IRL a few APCs and IFVs have fallen prey to insurgent/terrorist/Taleban/whatever you want to call them firepower in Iraq and Afghanistan. The vehicles aren't designed to be perfect. Likewise, Rhinos and Chimaerae aren't supposed to be capable of disgorging their assault troops right into the enemy lines unscathed.

They either serve as fire support for the unit they're attached to in a set piece battle or, if caught unawares (represented in game by sticking assault troops in them and throwing them forward as fast as you can), they'll step on the gas and get the guys they're carrying into range.

While it would make sense to have more resilient (and expensive) vehicles, the enemy would develop more powerful counters and, p'raps more importantly, the Imperium doesn't like changing what it's got. So it keeps the old stuff just because. Though the truly hardcore units can always deploy in Land Raiders. IIRC, Guard used to use them, too. But since they're few in number nowadays, it's rare to see them deployed even to aide normal Marines.

Lothlanathorian
11-04-2007, 06:03
APCs are called MDTs for 40K purposes with my friends and me. MDT is short for Mobile Death Trap. They are good, however, for getting between your enemy's guns and your troops while they advance.

Corporal Chaos
11-04-2007, 06:26
What about "All of the above"

Bunnahabhain
11-04-2007, 09:57
Well, AV10 can be pinged by S4, and only Nids, Chaos, Marines, Necrons , Tau, Eldar, and Orks have S4 or better weapons as standard for their troops. I suppose chimeras are useful for keeping the rain off my guardsmen.

Really, it's a reaction to 2nd ed, where armour was alot more powerful, and the armour penetration system was far more subtle. As there were more than 5 armour values, you could have a APC that could shrug off small arms fire (Bolters are small arms, with impressive fluff), and yet not be armoured like a main battle tank. Arour values ranged between, IIRC, 10 (buggies etc) to 24-25 Front of a demolisher, baneblade, land-raider etc.

A compromise between the two, ie one armour value per face, and a common damage table, but with a better range of armour and AP values would be better than either current or 2nd ed systems, as it would be relatively streamlined, unlike 2nd ed, but have far less drastic jumps between armour values, so making skills like tank hunter more balanced.