News: No news is good news...

Login  |  Register

Author Topic: Some IG Tank ideas  (Read 13367 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Calamity

  • Concussor Concussed Dice | Captain
  • Lazerous Penguin
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3055
  • Country: gb
  • Cocking up miniatures since 1998
  • Armies: Kharadron Overlords, Bloodbound, Celestial Lions
Some IG Tank ideas
« on: January 28, 2016, 12:29:49 PM »
As some of you may know, I've applied for the position of Rules Creator at GW.  It's my dream job of course, although I'm not getting my hopes up on getting it.  Whilst I'm awaiting a reply, can I run some of these suggestions past you all for consideration?  It's all about Leman Russ tanks.  Some suggestions I have to make them better:

1. Change the wording of the tank order Gunners, Kill On Sight! to the following: The squadron immediately makes a shooting attack.  Each vehicle in the squadron may fire one weapon at a different target unit to any other weapons, subject to the normal rules for shooting.  This is like a poor man's Power Of The Machine Spirit, and would reward you for taking mixed weapons on your tanks.  For example, you could take a trio of triple heavy bolter armed Vanquishers, and if your tank order was successful, they could focus those AT guns on the best target whilst the heavy bolters hose down the enemy infantry.  In my opinion, this rework would make tank orders really worth it now rather than just being a minor bonus, and it better reflects the description too.

2. Now that Gunners, Kill On Sight has been changed, it is no longer necessary to make Tank Commander squadrons a minimum of two vehicles.  So now, the Command Vehicle can operate all by itself, with an option of fielding up to two extra vehicles if the player wants too.

3. In order to encourage players to field extra vehicles in the command squadron regardless, I propose that all vehicles in it are upgraded to BS:4.

4. I've long been of the opinion that the Ordinance Weapon equipped Leman Russ tanks are a little overpriced.  Yes, they have the most powerful guns.  But these guns reduce their overall firepower by quite a bit.  And, it might just be me, but I've always found blast weapons to be unreliable at best anyway.  So how about dropping the price of a standard Leman Russ to 125pts (bringing it into line with the other IG mainstays like the Valkyrie and the Basilisk) and the price of a Demolisher to 150pts?

5. Finally, if you do take a Tank Commander, how about letting them allow Leman Russ squadrons of at least two vehicles count as troop choices instead of heavy support?  So you can get an armoured company list out of the standard codex.

Well, what do you all think?  I'm looking forward to getting to test these proposals very soon with my friend.  And if I get this job I'll have something to hit the ground running with.  :)

Offline Spectral Arbor

  • Major
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3021
  • Country: ca
  • Thanks for the help.
Re: Some IG Tank ideas
« Reply #1 on: January 28, 2016, 11:49:49 PM »
For the love of doughnuts, fix Lumbering Behemoth!

If you allow LR's to be taken as Troops, you more or less invalidate the Core formation from Mont'Ka. Even then, you're making 5 Russes as the minimum for a CAD, if you reduce the TC's unit to a minimum of 1. Realistically, that should be at least 6 Russes. With some upgraded gear, that's a minimum of 960 points.

Not that GW cares about that, of course, but unless you're playing 2000 points or more, there isn't much wiggle room at 1500 points.

First order of business needs to be fixing Guard's mobility options. I recently played an army list in which I took...

Guard CAD
CCS, 2x Vets - Lots of Plasma, in the Allied Pods

Marine CAD
Techmarine, 2x 5 Scouts with Camo+Sniper, 3x Dreads in Pods, 3x Empty Pods

Guard Artillery Formation
CCS, 2x Bassie, 1x Manticore


I went up against my buddy's Eldar, and narrowly won the Relic. I haven't played an IG army even close to that effectiveness. The Pods and Dread support were amazing, while the scouts stole the relic and ran back to the Arty.

Point is, that without the Pods, and some Melee deterrent, I would have been unable, in any way, to capture the objective. Guard need mobility at a reasonable price. Russ are mostly irrelevant in light of Gauss, Haywire, and widespread Krak grenades on mobile platforms.

Russes aren't really the problem. They need Lumbering Behemoth fixed, and their rear armour upgraded to 12 for all varieties.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2016, 11:51:09 PM by Spectral Arbor »

Offline Calamity

  • Concussor Concussed Dice | Captain
  • Lazerous Penguin
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3055
  • Country: gb
  • Cocking up miniatures since 1998
  • Armies: Kharadron Overlords, Bloodbound, Celestial Lions
Re: Some IG Tank ideas
« Reply #2 on: January 29, 2016, 05:28:28 AM »
Oh god, you're right!  The rear armour!  Yes, that needs bumped up too.  It's redicolus that a main battle tank can be taken out by small arms fire.  I think Wyddr mentioned this point at one stage as well.

How about 12 RA for the 'regular' russes, and 13 RA for the 'siege' varients?

I'm also aware that the IG do have serious mobility problems at the moment, and I am looking at ways to fix that.

What would you suggest for Lumbering Behemoth?  And apart from the tanks as troops idea which I can drop, what about the other suggestions?

Offline Grand Master Lomandalis

  • Grand Master of the Deathwing | Oh the lolmanity! | 40kOnline's Care Bear of LOL!
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11372
  • Country: ca
  • We were murderers first, last, and always!
  • Armies: Dark Angels, Custodes, Knights, Night Lords
Re: Some IG Tank ideas
« Reply #3 on: January 29, 2016, 07:15:28 AM »
Oh god, you're right!  The rear armour!  Yes, that needs bumped up too.  It's redicolus that a main battle tank can be taken out by small arms fire.  I think Wyddr mentioned this point at one stage as well.

How about 12 RA for the 'regular' russes, and 13 RA for the 'siege' varients?
I think 12 for a regular Russ may be pushing it.  At 11 the Russes are immune to basic small arms fire like Bolters, and are immune to regular marine close combat attacks (not counting Krak Grenades).

I could agree with bumping the regular russes up to matching the siege variants rear armour, though.
If there is anything that recent politics has taught us, it is that quotes taken out of context can mean what ever you want them to.
Well I always liked the globals...
I knew I had fans!!!

Quote
"Dark Angels are Traitors" is the 40k equivalent of Flat Earthers.  You can provide all of the proof you want that says otherwise, but people just can't let it go...

Offline Calamity

  • Concussor Concussed Dice | Captain
  • Lazerous Penguin
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3055
  • Country: gb
  • Cocking up miniatures since 1998
  • Armies: Kharadron Overlords, Bloodbound, Celestial Lions
Re: Some IG Tank ideas
« Reply #4 on: January 29, 2016, 08:32:37 AM »
I think 12 for a regular Russ may be pushing it.  At 11 the Russes are immune to basic small arms fire like Bolters, and are immune to regular marine close combat attacks (not counting Krak Grenades).

I could agree with bumping the regular russes up to matching the siege variants rear armour, though.

I feel like the siege variants should have slightly thicker rear armour for a couple of reasons.  They've always had it for as long as I can remember (so it's like a grandfather clause), and if you look at the models themselves they seem to be bulkier at the rear of the turret and engine compartment.  I think you're right about the value though.  Would RA:11 for standard Russes and RA:12 for the siege variants be acceptable?

P.S: very small change here l, but I think an Eradicator cannon should have its range increased.  Basically I believe that the siege variants main weapons should be limited to 36" (which they are), but the standard variants main weapons should be a minimum of 48".  The shorter range of the siege variants should be why their rear armour is increased.  How do the rest of you feel about this?
« Last Edit: January 29, 2016, 09:05:37 AM by Captain Calamity »

Offline Wyddr

  • Author Eminence: Hereticus Liber Daemonica | Fio'shas Shi
  • Lazerous Penguin
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5254
  • Country: us
    • My blog about SF/F stuff
  • Armies: Daemons, Imperial Fists, Tau, Ksons, Vostroyans
Re: Some IG Tank ideas
« Reply #5 on: January 29, 2016, 10:34:10 AM »
I think Russ rear armor should be capped at 11. A bunch of troops with anti-tank grenades should have a reasonable chance at taking the thing out in assault. They aren't Baneblades, guys.

I think the Russ's need only three things:

1) Cost decrease (across the board) by about 20-ish points. Yes, all variants. They have good armor, but they're so damned slow they ought to be cheap.

2) The return of Lumbering Behemoth to read as follows: Units with this rule that fire an Ordnance weapon may fire all other weapons on the vehicle at full BS.

3) Better Tank Orders. Give them access to Pinning, let them split fire on the same tank, let them make a one-time Tank Shock/Ram in the shooting phase, and give their turret weapons Twin-Linked. Stuff like that.

Offline Calamity

  • Concussor Concussed Dice | Captain
  • Lazerous Penguin
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3055
  • Country: gb
  • Cocking up miniatures since 1998
  • Armies: Kharadron Overlords, Bloodbound, Celestial Lions
Re: Some IG Tank ideas
« Reply #6 on: January 29, 2016, 11:47:59 AM »
I think Russ rear armor should be capped at 11. A bunch of troops with anti-tank grenades should have a reasonable chance at taking the thing out in assault. They aren't Baneblades, guys.

I definitely agree with RA:11 for the standard variants, which as GML says moves them out of harms way from small arms fire and marines fists whilst still keeping them relatively vulnerable to real AT weapons, but I feel as though the siege variants can be justified in having RA:12 due to the fact that they seem to be designed to get stuck right into the enemy in confined spaces were tanks would normally be vulnerable, like jungles or cities, and therefore would have that weakness shored up a little.

I think the Russ's need only three things:

1) Cost decrease (across the board) by about 20-ish points. Yes, all variants. They have good armor, but they're so damned slow they ought to be cheap.

I like this.  I only had the ordinance armed vehicles in mind at first but I think you have a point here.  Say, 125pts for the standard, exterminator, vanquisher and executioner variants, 100pts for the Eradicator (with a 48" range for the main gun) and Punisher variants, and 150pts for the demolisher?  At these prices, an armored company would be viable.

2) The return of Lumbering Behemoth to read as follows: Units with this rule that fire an Ordnance weapon may fire all other weapons on the vehicle at full BS.

Works for me!  I actually wish this was part of the rules for Heavy vehicles in general, but we don't need another addition of 40k so quickly.  Again.  :P

3) Better Tank Orders. Give them access to Pinning, let them split fire on the same tank, let them make a one-time Tank Shock/Ram in the shooting phase, and give their turret weapons Twin-Linked. Stuff like that.

How does my rewrite of Gunners, Kill On Sight sound?  And for a while, I was tinkering with the idea of adding Bring It Down, Fire On My Target and Suppressing Fire to the list of tank orders.  How do they sound?  With FOMT alone, a Tank Commander squadron suddenly becomes scary.



Offline Wyddr

  • Author Eminence: Hereticus Liber Daemonica | Fio'shas Shi
  • Lazerous Penguin
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5254
  • Country: us
    • My blog about SF/F stuff
  • Armies: Daemons, Imperial Fists, Tau, Ksons, Vostroyans
Re: Some IG Tank ideas
« Reply #7 on: January 29, 2016, 12:37:58 PM »
I would veer away from Bring It Down and Fire On My Target. Too powerful on a Russ, especially if they're blazing away with all guns.

And no, no rear AV12. Too much for a cheap tank. Rear armor is really expensive--everybody pays a huge premium for that kind of coverage. 

Offline khaine

  • This happens when I am bored.
  • Lazerous Penguin
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1376
  • Country: england
  • Truly Dread
Re: Some IG Tank ideas
« Reply #8 on: January 29, 2016, 01:35:58 PM »
2. Now that Gunners, Kill On Sight has been changed, it is no longer necessary to make Tank Commander squadrons a minimum of two vehicles.  So now, the Command Vehicle can operate all by itself, with an option of fielding up to two extra vehicles if the player wants too.


Personaly I never understood the Tank Commander squardron requirement, a tank company is 10 Russ, 3 squads of 3 and 1 commandern so  making it that the Commander must have somebody with him never sat well.

3. In order to encourage players to field extra vehicles in the command squadron regardless, I propose that all vehicles in it are upgraded to BS:4.

Pretty much what the Emperors Fist formation already does (+extra)

4. I've long been of the opinion that the Ordinance Weapon equipped Leman Russ tanks are a little overpriced.  Yes, they have the most powerful guns.  But these guns reduce their overall firepower by quite a bit.

I see you're thinking, but your path is that "the Russ is to expensive if you addd sponsons", and that is a problem with the cost of sponsons. Cheaper Sponson on an Russ/Demolisher would be fine as they are going to be of less use, reducing the cost of the basic vehicle, which people then don't have to put the sponsons on anyway doesn't really fix the base issue. The other option would be a rule change to how Ordnance work. So yes there is an issue, no the issue isn't with the base cost of a Russ.



5. Finally, if you do take a Tank Commander, how about letting them allow Leman Russ squadrons of at least two vehicles count as troop choices instead of heavy support?  So you can get an armoured company list out of the standard codex

Again the Emperors Fist has kindof got this coverd. Changing the Russ to be a troops option in a CAD (Or any other detachment) has far bigger implications beyond letting you take Russ squadrons to back up a Tank Commander. The Fist Formation gives you pretty much all the Russ goodness you could want but requires that you take other Detachments/Formations to take specalist units to suupport the tanks, by making a Russ Squadron a Troops option in a CAD you would open up the option for people to than max out additional Heavy Support/Fast Attack/Elite options directly on top of the Tanks. Also any time a rule involves "Troops" it would cover the Russ squadrons. GW is moving away from the shifting slot for certain units and more towards Formations all the time to avoid some of those issues.

  There's no stopping what can't be stopped, no killing what can't be killed

You can't see the eyes of the demon until him come calling.

This is dread man, truly dread.


"Childhood is when you idolize Batman. Adulthood is when you realize that the Joker makes more sense."

Offline Calamity

  • Concussor Concussed Dice | Captain
  • Lazerous Penguin
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3055
  • Country: gb
  • Cocking up miniatures since 1998
  • Armies: Kharadron Overlords, Bloodbound, Celestial Lions
Re: Some IG Tank ideas
« Reply #9 on: January 29, 2016, 02:13:57 PM »
I would veer away from Bring It Down and Fire On My Target. Too powerful on a Russ, especially if they're blazing away with all guns. 

I agree with you on that with regards to Fire On My Target, but Bring It Down might be OK.  I know Predator Tanks can acquire it.  There's stories of Pask bringing down Titans, and I like to think that this order would help that happen.  Suppressing Fire is no problem at all, and I'll assume that my rewrite of Gunners Kill On Sight is OK as well.  Take Aim might be another one that could work for them.  I feel like the total number of orders would need to be a multiple of three.  That's a thing with GW it seems. 

And no, no rear AV12. Too much for a cheap tank. Rear armor is really expensive--everybody pays a huge premium for that kind of coverage. 

I'm going to have to remain in the RAV 12 camp myself.  It can still be glanced to death via krak grenade spam, whilst melta bombs will still cut through it easily enough.

Personaly I never understood the Tank Commander squardron requirement, a tank company is 10 Russ, 3 squads of 3 and 1 commandern so  making it that the Commander must have somebody with him never sat well.

I know right?  I can understand why they might occasionally bring some back up, but in real life most tank commanders run alone...I think.

Pretty much what the Emperors Fist formation already does (+extra)

True.  At least this way you can do it on a smaller scale.

I see you're thinking, but your path is that "the Russ is to expensive if you addd sponsons", and that is a problem with the cost of sponsons. Cheaper Sponson on an Russ/Demolisher would be fine as they are going to be of less use, reducing the cost of the basic vehicle, which people then don't have to put the sponsons on anyway doesn't really fix the base issue. The other option would be a rule change to how Ordnance work. So yes there is an issue, no the issue isn't with the base cost of a Russ.

Good points.  If we followed Wyddr's suggestion with Lumbering Behemoth then it goes a long way towards fixing it.  But I still think the tanks could do with a slight points decrease.

Again the Emperors Fist has kindof got this coverd. Changing the Russ to be a troops option in a CAD (Or any other detachment) has far bigger implications beyond letting you take Russ squadrons to back up a Tank Commander. The Fist Formation gives you pretty much all the Russ goodness you could want but requires that you take other Detachments/Formations to take specalist units to suupport the tanks, by making a Russ Squadron a Troops option in a CAD you would open up the option for people to than max out additional Heavy Support/Fast Attack/Elite options directly on top of the Tanks. Also any time a rule involves "Troops" it would cover the Russ squadrons. GW is moving away from the shifting slot for certain units and more towards Formations all the time to avoid some of those issues.

Yeah, I've totally gone off that idea now, for these reasons you mention.  It's best to leave them in heavy support.

The main thing I want to do is make it viable and easy to field at least a troop (3-5) of tanks in even a small army, because studying the battles of Word War 2 and beyond, tanks always featured heavily.  Battles involving dozens of them on either side at a minimum.  And the IG should invoke this idea; waves of tanks smashing everything aside.

Offline Wyddr

  • Author Eminence: Hereticus Liber Daemonica | Fio'shas Shi
  • Lazerous Penguin
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5254
  • Country: us
    • My blog about SF/F stuff
  • Armies: Daemons, Imperial Fists, Tau, Ksons, Vostroyans
Re: Some IG Tank ideas
« Reply #10 on: January 29, 2016, 02:33:43 PM »
If you're going to give them rear armor 12, then I'd argue for no point discount.

Offline Calamity

  • Concussor Concussed Dice | Captain
  • Lazerous Penguin
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3055
  • Country: gb
  • Cocking up miniatures since 1998
  • Armies: Kharadron Overlords, Bloodbound, Celestial Lions
Re: Some IG Tank ideas
« Reply #11 on: January 29, 2016, 02:38:01 PM »
If you're going to give them rear armor 12, then I'd argue for no point discount.

If we used your Lumbering Behemoth rule, would the current prices be OK?  Because I will ditch the RAV 12 idea if the tanks really need to be discounted.

Is there another way to make the siege variants tougher than the standard tanks?

 

Offline Grand Master Lomandalis

  • Grand Master of the Deathwing | Oh the lolmanity! | 40kOnline's Care Bear of LOL!
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11372
  • Country: ca
  • We were murderers first, last, and always!
  • Armies: Dark Angels, Custodes, Knights, Night Lords
Re: Some IG Tank ideas
« Reply #12 on: January 29, 2016, 04:14:39 PM »
The armour aspect of this discussion is really the only point I have a comment about.  I don't face Russes enough to really be able to comment on what would make them better.

Yes, the siege variant of tanks has, traditionally, had heavier armour than the MBT variants.  However, when you look at increasing their rear armour to 12, you are saying they have a better armour profile than an Imperial Knight for less than half the cost.

Probably the best way to look at it is that both tanks are an 11 on the rear armour scale.  Yes, the LRBT is on the lower end of the 11 and the siege variants are the higher end, but they are still 11s.

You have to keep balance in check as well.  If you were to bump them up to 14/12/12, I would actually recommend a point increase.  You are right in that they can still be glanced by Krak grenades, but how many krak grenades would be needed to bring down a Russ?  Don't look at the armour as just how thick the plating is, but also how an enemy can exploit a vulnerability such as the lack of manoeuvrability.  A krak grenade may not be able to blast a hole in the armour, but a krak grenade shoved down the tail pipe is going to do a number on the tank!
If there is anything that recent politics has taught us, it is that quotes taken out of context can mean what ever you want them to.
Well I always liked the globals...
I knew I had fans!!!

Quote
"Dark Angels are Traitors" is the 40k equivalent of Flat Earthers.  You can provide all of the proof you want that says otherwise, but people just can't let it go...

Offline Calamity

  • Concussor Concussed Dice | Captain
  • Lazerous Penguin
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3055
  • Country: gb
  • Cocking up miniatures since 1998
  • Armies: Kharadron Overlords, Bloodbound, Celestial Lions
Re: Some IG Tank ideas
« Reply #13 on: January 29, 2016, 05:25:38 PM »
I did not realize that a Knight had less armor than a Russ.  That really puts things into perspective.

OK, I've seen the light.  Thank you for the advice.  RAV 11 for all the variants, and not a point more. 

And to bring back Lumbering Behemoth as a rule to allow you to ignore the penalties for firing ordinance weapons?  Because lets face it, heavy vehicles should probably have this as standard anyway.  Maybe with a different name?  Something to do with a gyroscope?

What about the points.  Should they decreased or not? 

And what about tank orders?  Is Bring It Down OK on a Russ?  Should the Commander be able to issue orders to other tank squadrons? 
« Last Edit: January 29, 2016, 05:29:33 PM by Captain Calamity »

Offline Wyddr

  • Author Eminence: Hereticus Liber Daemonica | Fio'shas Shi
  • Lazerous Penguin
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5254
  • Country: us
    • My blog about SF/F stuff
  • Armies: Daemons, Imperial Fists, Tau, Ksons, Vostroyans
Re: Some IG Tank ideas
« Reply #14 on: January 29, 2016, 09:55:18 PM »
AV 11 rear armor, reduce cost 20 points across the board, Lumbering Behemoth as I described (no sense in rewriting the core rule for Heavy Vehicles--that would take a new edition of the main rules and really, let's just not).

Come up with some snazzy tank orders and bam--fixed. I'd take 130 point LRBTs all day long. 140 point Punishers w/sponsons and access to an order giving them pinning or twin-linked? Yes please!

Ooo! A 160 point Demolisher w/3x Heavy Flamers? NICE.

Offline Spectral Arbor

  • Major
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3021
  • Country: ca
  • Thanks for the help.
Re: Some IG Tank ideas
« Reply #15 on: January 30, 2016, 12:56:08 AM »
Quite frankly, a Russ should have better armour than a Knight. It's a friggin' heavy battle tank. The Knight is an oversized walker, that needs to worry about not falling over. It takes a hard hit in the side, it has to balance itself. If a Russ takes a hard hit in the side... What, did we get hit? Plus, what justification does a Knight have to get 6 HP, anyway? One shot that bad-boy with a Lascannon sized sniper rifle to the face... or wherever the Pilot compartment is. Same deal with Riptides. Honestly, how hard is it to snipe a pilot?

In terms of price... A Knight is twice as mobile, can fire twice as many shots [Paladin vs LRBT] has twice as many HP, is immune to "instant death" and has D-Class close combat attacks. And Stomps. And a cooler stereo. And spinners. And hookers. I'm sad on the IG right now. :(

Fluff wise, is a Russ that much easier to kill than a Land Raider? I'm not much for fluff, but if you're expecting to engage in siege warfare, how much does a bit of heavy mesh to cover your exhaust pipe really cost? ;) I don't mind keeping them pricey, if they'd live longer.

My request would be Rear AV 11 for regular, 12 for siege. Fix Lumbering Behemoth. Cooler orders would be nice. Give them 4 HP? Something needs to be done, they move like molasses in winter in a game that's all about the foot-long. Movement. At full BS. And Jinking. And hookers. [You're just not playing it right.]

So yeah. A small price drop on the LRBT and Demo would be nice, but it's not game breaking as is. Make'em a bit tougher and fix LB and you'd have a fan.

PS: I don't care much about balance anymore, per se, but Prescience on a couple Plasma-cutioners with FOMT. With Preferred Enemy. Squad deletion, complete. IG has become king cheese of cheddah mountain!
« Last Edit: January 30, 2016, 12:58:53 AM by Spectral Arbor »

Offline khaine

  • This happens when I am bored.
  • Lazerous Penguin
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1376
  • Country: england
  • Truly Dread
Re: Some IG Tank ideas
« Reply #16 on: January 30, 2016, 03:41:36 AM »
Plus, what justification does a Knight have to get 6 HP, anyway? One shot that bad-boy with a Lascannon sized sniper rifle to the face... or wherever the Pilot compartment is. Same deal with Riptides. Honestly, how hard is it to snipe a pilot?

How hard would it be to snipe a Knight pilot? Way harder than it would be to put a round through the drivers window on a Russ.

  There's no stopping what can't be stopped, no killing what can't be killed

You can't see the eyes of the demon until him come calling.

This is dread man, truly dread.


"Childhood is when you idolize Batman. Adulthood is when you realize that the Joker makes more sense."

Offline Calamity

  • Concussor Concussed Dice | Captain
  • Lazerous Penguin
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3055
  • Country: gb
  • Cocking up miniatures since 1998
  • Armies: Kharadron Overlords, Bloodbound, Celestial Lions
Re: Some IG Tank ideas
« Reply #17 on: January 30, 2016, 04:44:28 AM »
So it boils down to either RAV 11 for all tanks and a 20pt decrease across the board, or RAV 12 for siege variants and no points decrease.  What about a compromise?  RAV 11 and a 20pts decrease in price for the regular variants, and RAV 12 and the price remains the same for the siege variants?  That's probably not good enough though.

I just double checked the armour value of a Space Marine Stormraven Gunship.  I'm trying to tip toe around the sharing copyright issues but, is there nothing to be said for RAV 12 for the siege tank variants combined with a reduction in price?  They are really slow, in a game all about movement as Spectral says.  And there are a lot of Haywire, Melta and Guass weapons out there.

I'm totally up for bringing back Lumbering Behemoth as a way to circumnavigate the problems with ordinance weapons however.  It just makes sense.  We definitely don't need a new edition of 40k again, so this is the next best thing.  I would rename it to Gryoscoptic Weapon System or something like that though, as Lumbering Behemoth is just pretty much Heavy. 

For tank orders, I'd go with my rewrite for Gunners, Kill On Sight (a three tank squadron could target four separate units in one shooting phase), and add Supressing Fire for sure.  Add another two orders to the list and we're set.  A crazy order might be to allow the turret guns to fire twice in one phase, maybe with -1 BS.  Or make them twin-linked.  What works better to represent the gunners frantically working to fire it as fast as they can?

Offline The GrimSqueaker

  • The Badger on the Road | Staff Infection Officer | Debased Vassal Slayer | Title Barfly | XOXOXO Gossip Girl | Bent Over
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19053
  • Country: nz
  • From the Fourth Necromantic House
Re: Some IG Tank ideas
« Reply #18 on: January 30, 2016, 03:26:28 PM »
RAV 12 for siege variants isn't so bad. Think of RAV also representing top armour. Flyers, fortifications and walkers are generally firing down upon a tank rather than straight at it after all.

Twin linked is more appropriate than firing twice.
Quote from: @TracyAuGoGO
Tact is for people who are too slow witted to be sarcastic.
Drink
Knights Tippler
Quote from: Surviving the World
If you can't make fun of something, it's probably not worth taking seriously.

You have to love the smell of science in the morning. It smells of learning.... or perhaps a gas leak.

Offline khaine

  • This happens when I am bored.
  • Lazerous Penguin
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1376
  • Country: england
  • Truly Dread
Re: Some IG Tank ideas
« Reply #19 on: January 30, 2016, 04:35:35 PM »
So it boils down to either RAV 11 for all tanks and a 20pt decrease across the board, or RAV 12 for siege variants and no points decrease.

The thing is that a 1pt rise in rear armour from 10 to 11 is actualy a big differance.

Suddenly you are immune to Str 4 close combat attacks and weapons fire from the rear (And there's a lot of Str4 in the game.), Krak Grenades and (a lot) of Monsterous creature are suddenly 50% less likely to penatrate. It's very easy to say "it's only 1 point" or "it's only a 16% differance but you do have to look at the overall picture of what falls into that 16%.

To put it another way, asuming Marines are the most common opponent you're likely to face a rise in Rear armour of AV11 to AV12 has a pretty minimal impact, you're preventing heavy bolters from glancing at range and reducing the odds of a Krak Grenade to penatrate to 0%, when you look at the average Marine army the number of heavy bolters and Krak grenades is relativly low.

Now a rise from AV10 to AV11 removes all bolt gun damage to the rear (Pretty much most of the army) and all basic close combat attacks from glancing (Pretty much the whole of the army.)

Same applies to a Chaos Marines, a lot of basic Eldar shooting attacks, Daemons and to a lesser degree Tau who while they have a majority of Str 5 weapons would suddenly be unable to Penatrate the rear armour with those weapons. Necrons of course wont care.

So far there's been a good number of valid points for the other changes suggested. The rise in rear AV comes across as more of a "it should be because we want" rather than "the rules doesn't work because xxx and needs to be changed".

  There's no stopping what can't be stopped, no killing what can't be killed

You can't see the eyes of the demon until him come calling.

This is dread man, truly dread.


"Childhood is when you idolize Batman. Adulthood is when you realize that the Joker makes more sense."

 


Powered by EzPortal