PDA

View Full Version : 5th ed and Defensive Weapons



Ney
10-09-2008, 14:55
Hi I'm new to 40k so if I do not make sence please bear over with me.

Now when I was reading the rules on vehicles I noticed that defensive weapons is everything S4 or less. But if I recall correctly both IG and SM does not have any S4 or less options for hull/side mounted weapons as HeavyBolters and HeavyFlamers are both S5. Can it really be true that alot of tanks no longer can taky any kind of defensive weapons?

Brucopeloso
10-09-2008, 14:56
Yup, sucks doesn't it?

x-esiv-4c
10-09-2008, 15:04
Engage pillbox formation!

Lord Solar Plexus
10-09-2008, 15:11
Can it really be true that alot of tanks no longer can taky any kind of defensive weapons?

No. All Imperial tanks can take a heavy stubber or stormbolter.

However, the standard point defense weapons aren't defensive anymore. All our weapons are considered offensive now, if you will excuse the pun. :)

Since tanks aren't scoring and cannot usually hide behind a wood anymore, it is not such a big deal. You won't be hiding them during deployment and come out guns blazing and you don't need to move that much anyways when you take their range into account. Just fire the ordnance or move a transport flat out.

Vaktathi
10-09-2008, 15:25
Hi I'm new to 40k so if I do not make sence please bear over with me.

Now when I was reading the rules on vehicles I noticed that defensive weapons is everything S4 or less. But if I recall correctly both IG and SM does not have any S4 or less options for hull/side mounted weapons as HeavyBolters and HeavyFlamers are both S5. Can it really be true that alot of tanks no longer can taky any kind of defensive weapons?

Aside from pintle heavy stubbers and storm bolters, yes this is true, and has had much the same effect on Tau, Orks and Eldar (although Eldar can get away with EML+other Main weapon in many cases at least). It's a dumb rule, I still really don't see why the change was made, but its there now unfortunately.

IAMNOTHERE
10-09-2008, 15:28
Isn't that really strange... just can't move for the number of sponson weapons on "modern day" battle tanks... maybe there's a reason?

centy
10-09-2008, 15:53
The blood angels do ok. If you have the baal and overcharged engines work then you can move 6 and shoot them all.
YAA for fast tanks.

EVIL INC
10-09-2008, 15:57
Also dont forget the land raider crusader and the hurricane bolters.

kultz
10-09-2008, 19:01
It's not that bad.

It seems to balance out the fact that tanks are tougher in this edition. The new damage charts and cover saves made tanks quite resilient at range.

So, to counter, they decrease the mobile firepower of tanks.

Having the str4 defensive weapons don't matter when the tank is just blasting away.

It does, however, prevent the "HAHHAA I DRIVE AWAY 6 INCHES AND FIRE ALL HEAVY BOLTERS!" tactic.

This allows infantry to actually close in on the tank and assault it should the tank be unsupported.

I like it.

Vaktathi
10-09-2008, 19:12
Isn't that really strange... just can't move for the number of sponson weapons on "modern day" battle tanks... maybe there's a reason?

If we want to go for realism, a battlecannon shell would likely trash a fast moving skimmer into the ground even if it didn't penetrate the armor. Modern battle tanks can move at speeds of 60kph and hit a target on the move over a mile away, but a battlecannon only hits a target only a couple dozen meters away a 1/3 of the time?

Unfortunately, real life doesn't translate well to 40k, which is really more fantasy in space than real scifi.


It's not that bad.

It seems to balance out the fact that tanks are tougher in this edition. The new damage charts and cover saves made tanks quite resilient at range.

So, to counter, they decrease the mobile firepower of tanks. The problem is, tanks *really* needed the extra survivability. the real drawback now is that in CC they are hit on rear armor and everything is coming with free krak grenades now. The change in vehicle shooting was probably the greatest change form 3rd to 4th, and now they went back.





It does, however, prevent the "HAHHAA I DRIVE AWAY 6 INCHES AND FIRE ALL HEAVY BOLTERS!" tactic. This however is the only real advantage over most anti-infantry tanks over infantry alternatives which usually last longer and have more guns. Otherwise the infantry alternatives are generally much better. Look at Chaos, what in the world is the point of Predators over Obliterators for instance? The oblits can still move and fire (even if not quite as far), can deep strike, have a greater variety of weapons, can assault their targets if need be, and are actually fairly dangerous if assaulted.

Also I really never saw what was so horrendously overpowered about moving 6" and firing heavy bolters, especially when they usually had range and LoS anyway. The only complains I ever saw about tank anti-infantry firepower were related to assault cannons, which was more about Rending than anything else.

gitburna
10-09-2008, 20:47
Otherwise the infantry alternatives are generally much better. Look at Chaos, what in the world is the point of Predators over Obliterators for instance? The oblits can still move and fire (even if not quite as far), can deep strike, have a greater variety of weapons, can assault their targets if need be, and are actually fairly dangerous if assaulted.

Well, if you're talking about triple las predators i'd say you might be right (2 oblits versus 1 pred), but lately i look at the autocannon/heavybolter version much more favourably. Compared to 2 obliterators, a predator destructor would be cheaper, immune to almost all basic weaponry and a lot of mid strength weaponry too, fire more weapons (you could even add on a pintle mount weapon for more shots and it'd still be cheaper than 2 oblits)

The Obliterators are obviously much more powerful in assault situations due to their powerfists and flamers, but you can argue that anyone who assaults the obliterators will still do so with a reasonable chance of success once you take into account sergeants etc.

I also dont know about anyone else but my real dread when using Obliterators is massed light firepower eg rapid firing bolters at short range

Bunnahabhain
10-09-2008, 21:04
Ok, another example then.

Leman russ with 3 heavy bolters - 163pts if you take standard extras.

2 fire support squads with 3 heavy bolter each - 160pts.

That russ can sit still, and fire 3 heavy bolters, the squads 6.
That russ can move at most 12" a turn, the squads 6+d6.

However, the heavy bolter squads can actually move and fire better than the russ, as you can sit one squad still and fire, and move the other.

And the point of the tank was to allow mobile firepower!

The current defensive weapon farce was a response to assualt cannons and shurican cannons. Blooming whiney elves, and the GW favourite marines get some rather nice kit, but it turns out to be too good, so they change the main rules, and don't care what happens to everyone else....

kultz
11-09-2008, 00:49
Hmm...Good points.

Never thought of that angle before...Vehicle providing mobile firepower...

Lion El Jason
11-09-2008, 01:00
Defensive weapons should be written into the vehicle description rather than a flat strength separation...

This stops a few really silly occurrences like where the tanks main armament ends up as defensive (Like back in 4th) or where a tanks point defence weapons cant be used because they are considered a main weapon.

Aun'shi, hero of Fio'vash
11-09-2008, 01:31
Defensive weapons should be written into the vehicle description rather than a flat strength separation...

This stops a few really silly occurrences like where the tanks main armament ends up as defensive (Like back in 4th) or where a tanks point defence weapons cant be used because they are considered a main weapon.

I think they made that choice to avoid people complaining about havin offensive weapons while others have defensive ones.
And of course some weapons, like the tau markerlight, have it specified in their notes.
If you change something, you apply it to anyone...

WLBjork
11-09-2008, 05:32
If we want to go for realism, a battlecannon shell would likely trash a fast moving skimmer into the ground even if it didn't penetrate the armor. Modern battle tanks can move at speeds of 60kph and hit a target on the move over a mile away, but a battlecannon only hits a target only a couple dozen meters away a 1/3 of the time?

Remember that 40K is a hodge-podge of technology.

The Land Raider has a far better power:weight ratio than an M1, yet the M1 is noticeably faster.

The Griffon self-propelled mortar has ended production as the AM can no longer produce one of the widgets for the base mount.

Tranch warfare has become the norm. That alone should indicate just how inaccurate artillery and air support is.

Although I consider the "true" effective range of the battlecnnon to be 1,440m. Ground scale is roughly 1":2m and weapon ranges are roughly 1/10 so that they fit onto a table, rather than a football field.

==Me==
11-09-2008, 05:32
Defensive weapons should be written into the vehicle description rather than a flat strength separation...

This stops a few really silly occurrences like where the tanks main armament ends up as defensive (Like back in 4th) or where a tanks point defence weapons cant be used because they are considered a main weapon.

I like that idea. It would be fairly easy to implement and would open up a lot of options to bring in more diversity within armies.

zerachiel
11-09-2008, 06:08
Ok, another example then.

Leman russ with 3 heavy bolters - 163pts if you take standard extras.

2 fire support squads with 3 heavy bolter each - 160pts.

That russ can sit still, and fire 3 heavy bolters, the squads 6.
That russ can move at most 12" a turn, the squads 6+d6.

However, the heavy bolter squads can actually move and fire better than the russ, as you can sit one squad still and fire, and move the other.

Of course, the 2 fire support squads can be eaten alive by anything from bolters to missile launchers to a Marine with a knife, while the Russ can sit pretty behind its AV14 until someone busts out the lascannons and railguns.

The fire support squads can be broken, pinned and/or Lashed, the Russ sits pretty unless Bolts of Change or Warp Blasts are being flung every which way.

The fire support squads cannot block LOS, while the Russ can shield most units from at least a part of the enemy's firepower. Movable terrain saved my squishy infantry from being rapid-fired right before the end of the game or picked off by heavy weapons quite a few times.

Also, unless I'm remembering incorrectly, you can fire all weapons when not moving, so the Russ's battle cannon will be barking pie plates at the same time.

They're different units with different weaknesses, though I will concede that it can no longer act as mobile firepower. Then again, tanks were originally thought up as a mobile battering ram with guns against trenches, and it is entirely possible that in the 41st millenium, tanks serve a different role on the battlefield than in the 21st century. But it does feel weird and unnatural that sponsons can, for some reason, no longer shoot when moving.

Xenobane
11-09-2008, 06:13
It does, however, prevent the "HAHHAA I DRIVE AWAY 6 INCHES AND FIRE ALL HEAVY BOLTERS!" tactic.


That was a tactic? :eyebrows:

I thought that was just moving and firing your tank.

stompzilla
11-09-2008, 06:46
Compared to what you've got to choose from in 5th, i guess that would class as a tactic now.

Bunnahabhain
11-09-2008, 10:20
Of course, the 2 fire support squads can be eaten alive by anything from bolters to missile launchers to a Marine with a knife, while the Russ can sit pretty behind its AV14 until someone busts out the lascannons and railguns.

Of couse, if the troops can be got to by a marine with a knife, so can the russ, and all those marines have krak grenades. And the troops are generally equally squishy from most directions. I'd love to have more of those deployments for my tanks where only their front is exposed


The fire support squads can be broken, pinned and/or Lashed, the Russ sits pretty unless Bolts of Change or Warp Blasts are being flung every which way.

Rather harder to shake or stun the troops though...


The fire support squads cannot block LOS, while the Russ can shield most units from at least a part of the enemy's firepower. Movable terrain saved my squishy infantry from being rapid-fired right before the end of the game or picked off by heavy weapons quite a few times.

Squads might not block LOS, but at least they will provide cover to those behind.


Also, unless I'm remembering incorrectly, you can fire all weapons when not moving, so the Russ's battle cannon will be barking pie plates at the same time.

Nope, ordnance may only be fired with other weapons by super heavies.


They're different units with different weaknesses, though I will concede that it can no longer act as mobile firepower. Then again, tanks were originally thought up as a mobile battering ram with guns against trenches, and it is entirely possible that in the 41st millenium, tanks serve a different role on the battlefield than in the 21st century. But it does feel weird and unnatural that sponsons can, for some reason, no longer shoot when moving.

You've got lots of valid points in there, I won't deny that. But I still say it is wrong that a russ can't move and fire 3 heavy bolters.

ctsteel
11-09-2008, 13:14
I think it would have been nice/better for them to make it such that the strength of the defensive weapons allowed is based on the speed category of the tank (which represents the crew being able to operate some lesser offensive weapons at low speed)

for example:

Vehicle at cruising speed or higher: defensive = up to Str 4 (current rule)
Vehicle at combat speed or less: defensive = up to Str 5

This would allow your heavy bolters, heavy flamers and such to still be operable when in combat conditions.

If that was deemed too powerful they could restrict it further by saying something like "only one strength 5 weapon can be used in addition to the Main weapon + str 4 weapons". Which still allows for some fire support at close range in combat maneuvering.

linkai
11-09-2008, 16:06
Limiting defensive weapons at S5 opens up heavy-bolter class weapons (including burst cannons and smart missiles, etc) but completely screws over S6 defensive weapons - e.g. shuriken cannon, starcannon. All of these weapons are supposed to be defensive weapons on tanks - weapons intended to eliminate light-to-medium threats from infantry... I understand why they changed the defensive weapon system - tanks blasting away every turn with lots of guns was not so cool. However, let's look at what they changed about vehicles.

Improvements:
1) More durable against range (damage table)
2) Cover saves (...hard to get)

Nerfs:
1) Not scoring
2) Assaults hit rear armour
3) Skimmer nerf
4) Defensive weapons

Now you get a Leman Russ for the battle cannon only (in 4th you got it for bolters, because scatter was terrible). Falcons are gone. Predators don't move. What good is mobile armour that can't do anything if they move?

The S4 rule is lame, especially when only one race (Eldar) can get away with firing a decent weapon "defensively" (EML) and other races are screwed by default. Yes, I have played Eldar for a long time and I think it's lame that we can get around this rule. However this rule just screws vehicles' viability considerable and flexibility completely.


Of course, the 2 fire support squads can be eaten alive by anything from bolters to missile launchers to a Marine with a knife, while the Russ can sit pretty behind its AV14 until someone busts out the lascannons and railguns.

The fire support squads can be broken, pinned and/or Lashed, the Russ sits pretty unless Bolts of Change or Warp Blasts are being flung every which way.

The fire support squads cannot block LOS, while the Russ can shield most units from at least a part of the enemy's firepower. Movable terrain saved my squishy infantry from being rapid-fired right before the end of the game or picked off by heavy weapons quite a few times.

Yes, but you forgot Assault [Marine] Squads kill *everything* now, not just fire support squads.

/rant

Sir_Turalyon
11-09-2008, 16:29
Of course, the 2 fire support squads can be eaten alive by anything from bolters to missile launchers to a Marine with a knife, while the Russ can sit pretty behind its AV14 until someone busts out the lascannons and railguns.

And of course, 2 fire support squads don't benefit from ordnance weapon firing on the move with no penalities, or from AV14 being much harder to destroy. Russes can still be mobile if they stick to using ordnance weapons; heavy bolters are more for situations when Russ is already immobilized and has main weapon destroyed (not only enemy has to chew through all these heavy bolters before destroying tank with glancing hits, but these bolters can shoot). Exterminators and predator destructors had it hard, on the other hand.



The S4 rule is lame, especially when only one race (Eldar) can get away with firing a decent weapon "defensively" (EML) and other races are screwed by default.

Dark Eldar had great defensive weapons too... In fact still have as dissintegrators are Str4.

forbin
11-09-2008, 17:08
look I know this is heresy but you could get 4th ed off ebay and play that

ok it has its own faults and you'd have to agree with the opposition play to use it

5th has good points and bad - its just so mediocre!

(When something is distinctly not as good as it could be, it is mediocre. )

still point is to have fun - enjoy and welcome!

Forbin