How To Improve Space Marine Tanks

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

Transports have gone up but I think they had to with all of the design changes. It took a long time for GW to embrace progressive scoring with objectives, and that vastly increased the value of most transports. In addition the conditions for adding dedicated transports to your army has changed. Before they were basically a unit upgrade, and had some restrictions based on that. Now we can just take one for each infantry unit (which includes characters which wasn't the case in earlier editions) so they are a lot more flexible. GW also had a habit of deciding to make them death traps every now and then (4th edition in particular if I remember right). 

 

 

 

It was a different game. No point in comparing, everything worked differently, and it was generally worse.

Sure it was lol, with 8th being the most failed edition from a rules standpoint.

 

 

I don't agree that 8th was the worst, but honesty if start to go down that road I'm willing to bet this thread gets locked quick.

[Ishagu]

8th was not a failed edition - it was the most popular and most played and revitalised the hobby.

 

6th and 7th were terrible by comparison - both for game balance and for the health of the hobby and it's popularity. Don't mistake or confuse this fact just because you happened to like some things more.

 

Anyway, let's get back to topic.

 

Could the Astartes tank benefit by getting a rule similar to what the Dreads have? A damage reduction ability. I can certainly see the Landraider and Repulsor having a rule like this.

[SkimaskMohawk]

You guys didn't read what I wrote.

 

From a core rules stand point it failed. By the end of the edition the 8th book was worthless due to the huge amounts of faqs and they released 9th by implementing a large amount of older mechanics and restrictions. 6th had a shorter lifespan, but the rules barely changed except to implement the detachment system instead of the previous FoC they had ruined with inquisitors and knights and other stuff.

 

I don't disagree that 8th was the most popular and easy to pick up, because it certainly was. But it's core rule set failed more than any other edition's to function as a good basis for the game to build off of.

[SanguinaryGuardsman]

But it's core rule set failed more than any other edition's to function as a good basis for the game to build off of.

I think all the new players 8th brought in (myself included) would disagree.

[SkimaskMohawk]

 

 

But it's core rule set failed more than any other edition's to function as a good basis for the game to build off of.

I think all the new players 8th brought in (myself included) would disagree.

You can disagree with me, sure.

 

But that doesn't change that a new player who started at the end of 8th basically couldn't trust the rule book for a bunch of very important stuff. And that 8ths lifespan was shorter than average. And that 9th pivoted to reincorporate a lot of the previous editions' rules and focus on non-faction and a single foc, among other things.

 

I'll say it again that 8th was the most popular, but it being a combo driven, model-based CCG that had simple to learn rules is the reason why. But that doesn't change the fact its rules were in flux for the entire life cycle, which ended early.

[Ishagu]

Length of the edition was fine. GW have sped everything up - a codex update could take 10 years in the past.

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

@Ishagu- I don't think a damage reduction would help tanks as much as dreads. Dreads really want to get into the midfield and leverage both their ranged & melee attacks. This pushes them into the middle of the table which makes it hard to line up half range shots with reserves. Basically its like they have -3 damage from eradicators in alot of situations.

 

Maybe giving tanks some version of auspex scanners, just to keep them out of that sweet spot?

[Sword Brother Adelard]

Damage reduction for some vehicles would be appropriate. But I'd also like something which reduces damage going through in the first place. The best mechanism we currently have to do that is AP reduction. It works better than Invulnerable saves, because invuls only protect against high AP, not low AP.

 

High AP weapons arguably should be going through tank armour, but tanking loads of wounds from D2 AP-1 weapons is not fun.

[SanguinaryGuardsman]

 

 

But it's core rule set failed more than any other edition's to function as a good basis for the game to build off of.

I think all the new players 8th brought in (myself included) would disagree.

You can disagree with me, sure.

 

But that doesn't change that a new player who started at the end of 8th basically couldn't trust the rule book for a bunch of very important stuff. And that 8ths lifespan was shorter than average. And that 9th pivoted to reincorporate a lot of the previous editions' rules and focus on non-faction and a single foc, among other things.

 

I'll say it again that 8th was the most popular, but it being a combo driven, model-based CCG that had simple to learn rules is the reason why. But that doesn't change the fact its rules were in flux for the entire life cycle, which ended early.

 

New players do not need stone cold perfect and up to date rules to become familiar with and enjoy 40k.  Your argument has a wiff of elitism about it.  As someone that started with 8th I can tell you that this was not because 7th or 6th was too complicated it was because the rules of previous editions were repulsive and filled with feelbadsies.  I did not want to invest time and money into a game that only 3 neck beards played where most of the relevant lists were predicated on models you could not interact with in any meaningful way.  Over the years I've heard one or another version of "old rules nostalgia" almost always by someone that was suggesting or outright stating that the current ruleset is lesser than previous editions.  The key words tend to be "dumbed down" "less tactical" "simple" "newb friendly" "easy mode" "softcore".  I can hardly wait for the nostalgia for 8th.          

[SkimaskMohawk]

Never said new players needed perfect rules. It pretty much has nothing to do with what I'm talking about, which is the overall edition's mechanical strength of the core rules. My argument also isnt about the nostalgia of old editions, because I also prefer 9th to 8th, and to 7th 40k as well. What I'm saying is that 8th edition went through rules changes to its base game, far past and far more what other editions had. It's rules were simple, but poorly thought through on many levels; 9ths rules are simple, but very thought through and hasnt experienced the amount of revisions 8th got in its first 8 months as a result. Iirc they had axed turn 1 deepstrike, implemented rule of 3 (and limited tau commanders), modified character screening, removed certain faction keywords for battleforged, and screwed with how keywords interacted with some stratagems. By the last 6 months of the edition a new player with just the rule book and codex had a more likely chance of making an illegal list than not, while still following the rules to the letter.

 

And ya, we can talk about how 8th is less tactical than...any other edition, including 9th. Wonder why terrain got rules again and reserves came back and they limited FOC selection harder than its been since 6th if those ideas of 8th worked so well. 

Edited February 27, 2021 by SkimaskMohawk

[Mandragola]

I think that's a fair point about 8th. The version they first released had a lot of problems. Among those was the fact that FW wrote a load of datasheets for their stuff with basically no cooperation with the main studio, on either side. Early 8th was plagued by imbalanced FW stuff as a result, and hte only solution was to raise the costs of some of the stuff to the level of unplayability.

 

Anyway, I think this stuff kind of affects new and existing players to different degrees. It also affects your wallet, which again has an imbalanced effect. Releasing a cool new tank that looks really cool, costs a lot of money and is utter trash in the game is problematic for people who might spend some of their limited cash on it, only to find that it lives on their shelf after the first couple of games. That's not such an issue for a more experienced player with a bit more money, who knows whether the unit is any good up front and can afford to buy useless luxury product if they want.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

This is getting way too OT now.

[SanguinaryGuardsman]

Marine tanks need to be cheaper.  Gladiators are not worth 230-250.  If a plague burst crawler is 170 then a Gladiator should be like 120ish... but that is a bit ridiculous.  So gladiators 170... PBCs ... 200+.  I dont think this needs a rules change or anything radical just for GW to pay attention.    

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Even the lemon russ is basically tin foil this edition. When I play against armor heavy armies my opponent alway asks why are you smiling.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

But those tanks can't do that in the lore, so why would they be able to do that in game?

 

If you want that, buy Storm Speeders.

lore and rules rarely match up.

A lasgun can't damage a landraider in lore, but can in game, in fact an IG army with 3 units of conscripts can theoretically destroy a LR in a single turn if I'm not mistaken...a lot of luck would be necessary but it can happen in gam where it can't happen in rules. that's perfect example of rules are meant for playability not lore accuracy.

Edited February 28, 2021 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[Ishagu]

90 conscripts would do around 1-2 wounds to a Landraider if they all shoot in rapid fire range lol Edited February 28, 2021 by Ishagu

[SanguinaryGuardsman]

 

But those tanks can't do that in the lore, so why would they be able to do that in game?

 

If you want that, buy Storm Speeders.

lore and rules rarely match up.

A lasgun can't damage a landraider in lore, but can in game, in fact an IG army with 3 units of conscripts can theoretically destroy a LR in a single turn if I'm not mistaken...a lot of luck would be necessary but it can happen in gam where it can't happen in rules. that's perfect example of rules are meant for playability not lore accuracy.

 

Theoretically 10 conscripts can destroy a full health landraider.  20 shots, 20 hits, 20 wounds, and only 16 failed 2+ saves and hopefully it isn't an Iron Hands landraider!

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

Any way how to fix SM tanks, drop 15-25pts and give them more options.

 

I don't see why the tempest and storm bolter mounts cant be used on all the gladiator variants and everything above the stormbolters in effectiveness or specialization is an upgrade with an associated points cost.

[DistractionTacMarine]

Most of the suggestions here would make tanks ludicrously powerful. T10 and reducing AP by 2 is, let’s face it, insanity

 

It’s not that complicated. Ignore AP1, maybe AP2. That solves a huge amount of the problem since it makes them much harder to kill with chip damage. Reduce the points a little bit. Hell, let them reroll a save or take saves on two dice (roll two, keep highest).

 

Uncapping toughness, universal invuls, reducing AP, these are all drastic solutions that would require changing the way tanks operate completely and changing the kinds of weapons you bring against them.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

Also just bring back AV with no facing, and have a separate chart for S vs AV, or give all 'armor' a key word and special rule that subtracts 1 or 2 from an attack's strength.

 

So,

armor- -1 to S of attacks

Heavy armor- -2 to S of attacks.

 

That might even help.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

Most of the suggestions here would make tanks ludicrously powerful. T10 and reducing AP by 2 is, let’s face it, insanity

 

It’s not that complicated. Ignore AP1, maybe AP2. That solves a huge amount of the problem since it makes them much harder to kill with chip damage. Reduce the points a little bit. Hell, let them reroll a save or take saves on two dice (roll two, keep highest).

 

Uncapping toughness, universal invuls, reducing AP, these are all drastic solutions that would require changing the way tanks operate completely and changing the kinds of weapons you bring against them.

personally putting vehicles on the same S vs T scale as infantry and bikes broke any semblance of balance between weapons, and vehicles imho.

 

If you have moderately durable infantry and/or bikes might as well just use that.

If you have GEQ, go with your tanks.

[Ishagu]

Nah that didn't break the balance at all. This is an incorrect misconception that I think comes from lack of experience.

 

In fact, some vehicles were great in 8th edition. Something that was impossible to achieve in 6th and 7th. I've played competitive warhammer since 5th edition and casually since 2nd when I was a lot younger. I have seen the effectiveness of units rise and fall under vastly different rulesets.

 

-Repulsors used to be amazing very recently

-Custodes Tanks used to be amazing very recently

-Knights used to be amazing

-The Leviathan was the most powerful unit in the game lol.

 

-Some vehicles are actually still very good now.

 

Marine tanks, as has been pointed out, are being costed too high and being restricted in terms of army synnergy. This is what changed. They are no longer interacting with character auras, various strats, psychic powers, relics, etc

 

A Gladiator tank cannot benefit from auras like a Dread, as an example, and costs far, far too much. It's a unit that actually has great weapons, good stats, but is priced out of being effective without having means to make up for it's shortcomings by interacting with other units. It also doesn't help that they took away unit rules and put them behind a strategem pay-wall. Also the mission design changed and now armies benefit more from other types of units.

 

Basically GW messed up these units in terms of internal codex balancing. They can all be fixed, but they require adjustments.

Edited March 7, 2021 by Ishagu

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Ishagu hit the nail on the head.

[War Angel]

So true.

 

Played a big 3,000 point game last week, and thanks to the table size, my Repulsor was largely out of range of things, and that cannon did work.

[bigtrouble]

This is a pretty hilarious topic. If you wanted a space marine tank to actually be functionally “equivalent” to an actual modern main battle tank using the current rule set, it would have to have approximately 400 wounds and would be S10 at least, and there would have to be an entire class of S10+ D50+ tank or airframe mounted weapons to deal with it. Such a vehicle would cost 5,000 points at minimum.

 

The only thing that makes sense with the current rule set to make the tanks more reasonable to field is simply to lower the points cost based on the survivability of the chassis. Wound for wound, at T8, a gladiator chassis should cost the same as 1.66 power armor wounds, because the weapon that is typically pointed at it will wound the tank on 4s and the dude on 2s. at roughly 10 points a wound for marines, that’s 200 points, plus weapons.

 

It lacks mobility on a small table. So would a MBT! No one wants to drive a tank through a city. You cannot have a game with a unit that is impossible to pick up. It’s an abstraction, and has to be treated as such, not as a realistic representation of a main battle tank.

Edited March 14, 2021 by bigtrouble