realism

[SoheilsX]

now, 40k is really one fo those games that if you delve deep enough, you will find so much detail its overwhelming, and in many ways its extrememly realstic. Its just that, i think it the most ignorant and stupid looking and sounding thing in the world, when a terminator or another large unit is taken down by a tiny weak unit, simply because of luck. In the game will it be presented that way where anyone can kill anything with enough luck, or will it be more realistic and have terminators rip through rows upon rows of tiny orcs and eldar?
God i hope termis are god like, and will the Grey Knights (aka Daemonhunters) be in it? I hope so, they are sooooo uber leet.

WOOOT!

[No Surrender]

Even terminators have chinks in their armour. A grot killing a termie represents something likethe grot hitting the termie in the eye with it's little baster and sending peices of shrapenal into the termie's head.

[Shim]

Good question. You won't get a reply though, Relic are being tighter than a clam's buthole about the game

[SoheilsX]

have you seen terminator armour , even their eyes are armored by some sort of futuristic bulletproof glass, these things are tanks.

[Maximus Decimus]

no no no, its nonesense to have that kind of realism where gretchins cant beat terminators. i bet a host of grets can defeat a terminator and the best way to represent this in a game is if a single gretchin attacks a terminator he will cause damage but will die before he rlly does anything where as a group of gretchins attacks and slowly kills the terminator. u wont see a gret vsing a termy 1v1 and beat the crap out of em, to date no RTS does that. for example starcraft a zealot will beat the crap out of a marine but 2 marines will just barely kill a lot with only one marine surviving. they will do something like that cause everyone knows a ork cant beat a marine in hand to hand so say it requires to orks to beat one marine and one marine costs/whatever(like recieve 2x the orks then marines the other guy gets when rienforcements come) same as 2 orks. all depends how they do it.

[starrider]

the way it'd be most evenly matched(with what we knwo now) would be what's already been said. of course a lowly grot or some other random thing couldnt bring donw a termie or vechiles etc. but in nearly every other game a horde of small things can bring down a big thing. such is the philosophy of things like the ripper swarm and nurglings. when they arent being used as cannon fodder and living sheilds that is.

[Maximus Decimus]

yeah ALTHOUGH i do not want to see marines taking out land raiders with bolters etc. i dont like things like that in most games as it takes away from the strategy. i want to have to use anti-tank weapons or bombs to take out vechiles and i guess a bunch of power weapons can take out a dread. i would just hate watching someone march up a bunch of orks and have them shoot a landraider to death lol cause such things arnt possible in real life(eg. bunch of soldiers shooting a M1A3 abram to death with M60 SAWs and M16s).

[starrider]

well, if you shoot anything enoguh, it'll eventually make a difference. if you LET marines with bolters shoot at ur land raider long enoguh to damage it beyond scratches etc, imo u deserve to lose it to em.

EDIT: also, if the guys in the ambram let the soldiers shoot at it with they're m16s and SAWs, then EVENTUALLY it will make a difference. but itll take a LONG LONG time. thats what they should do imo to the gmae in likewise situations. make it take so long if u lose it u deserve to lose it.

[CPowers22]

No, actually the rounds from those weapons will never even dent the armor of an Abrams. Probably wouldn't even scratch the paint. It is depleted uranium and chobham afterall, not easily penetrated even by dedicated antitank weapons. Some fights just cannot be won....

[Maximus Decimus]

very true it would take them yrs and yrs to take a abram down as it can withstand even a few rounds from a enemy tank. well in warhammer it can be argued that bolters r mini rocket launcher as they r but even as such dont have the power to cause any damage to a land raider or preditor or rhino. if u argue they can with time then i want them to take off .00001 hp per minute that will work and ill be happy with. having soldier take down tanks with regular arms is rediculous, all it does is take away from strategy and makes ppl become lazy " meh i dont wanna get a anti tank squad if he has tanks ill just send these marines to kill his base blah blah blah". by the way same thing better be the same with structures and defences.

[z-beam]

hell yeah.

no way would it be strategy game if a mob of slugga armed orks could even scratch a land raider or a bunker. but it would be cool to see the said mob try and rush the raider with stickbombs (once they were really close) and take out a couple of themselves with it. thats why a raider can carry marines.... to deal with infantry.

no soldier goes out to battle with just one weapon (real life) so it would be good to see each race having some units with alternate weapons.

[starrider]

thats what i was saying, it would take a LONG ass tiem to do anything to either a land raider with bolters, or a abrams with m16s. imo they should represent that. IE if its a full health its a lost battle, but if its low enoguh so that a bolter shot would take out treads or hit sometihng vital in the already heavily damaged armour to take it out. i dont want it to be like; land raider A has one health, yet still manages to take out three squads of marines pounding away at it for a while.

[Maximus Decimus]

yeah, to z-beam um yes soldiers in real life go out with one main weapon and a side arm, this is standard and default weapons are issued by the army to regular troops. a soldier will get a m16 and a side arm while a machine gunner in the squad will get a m60 and a side arm. u will never see ppl in one squad carrying a entire array of diff weapons. it is all issued by the military and they have the say on which assault weapons one can field. a m4 is carryed by a staff sergeant usually and all it is, is a smaller version of the m16 made for close quarter combat therefore it is realistic to see one squad carrying all sluggas or bolters etc.

[aeturnum]

Well, it's not like a grot killing a termie is likely, it's suppose to represent that one lucky shot at the terminator's eye-plate that had taken one too many shots previously. It could happen. But it's not going to happen alot.
As for the land raider thing (or the Abrams), in the short term (like in a battle) small arms fire will never get through their armor. But, of course, anything that is shot for very long periods of time (years) will eventaully breakdown. No matter how tough something is, it can be worn down. Think about how old alot of the stuff in 40k is, it could be ripe for failure.

[Maximus Decimus]

um no no, u see things and tanks are maintained therefore it doesnt matter how old it is. i also dont want to see a full health orks or grot take down a full health terminator. when u mention things can be taken out after long periods of time how would u apply this to the game? i think i know how one standard arms shot takes .00001 hp from a tank, thats the only way it would be practicle to include such a thing.

[Chobo-Elite]

well since this is a game and having godlike terminators would be totally unbalancing. like all RTS games any unit can kill anyother unit, it just takes loads of time. I know it sounds absurd but would you really let your precious termie be slowly hacked away by a grot? the answer would be/should be no. just because they can kill it doesnt mean they will kill it all the time, terminators and land raiders have weapons too you know.

[Maximus Decimus]

lol they do BUT IN THE CASE OF THE TANK U R TOTALLY WRONG. i simply CANNOT have a squad with regular arms take out a land raider by shooting it, its impossible there u introduce anti-tank weapons why do u think u dont see squads of soldiers shooting at enemy tanks with m16s? its impracticle, u cant have that happen or it would be extremely gay. it also takes away from strategy and is the lazy approach "man im just gonna send all these regular marines to kill his base, screw making all this anti-tank/anti-building weapons im too lazy". very very stupid and thats what starcraft and warcraft need to fix.

[ankara halla]

I agree that you shouldn´t be able to take out Land Riders (or most armour for that matter but especiallu Land Raiders) with anything but anti-tank weapons or their equilavents.

In real life terms, you could have a dozen hvy machine guns firing DU or Tungsten rounds day in day out on a 50 year old tank and they wouldn´t do more than sratch the paint. Actually, the machine guns would break to wear before damaging the tank.

Shooting a tank with small arms severs but one purpose, to distract it´s attention from something else.

[starrider]

well honestly it may be impossible in real life, but in games they have sometihng called health bars. this is so that nothing becomes invincible. everything takes away from these health bars you see. no matter how little they do take away from them. thereofre if you negelct you land raider it will get killed by something stupid. if that happens, its the result of poor planing and playing by you. if you allow a marine squad to sit there and take shots at your landraider for as long as it would take in game time as thats what the whole purpose of this forum is, then you should lose your land raider, as you didnt have enoguh sense to tell it to fire on the littel marines.

now its wildly unlikely that a marine squad will kill a land raider, although its bound to happen within its lifetime. as much as you may not like it, things that are impossible in life are possible in games. thats part of the charm.


EDIT: and futher more, youur reasoning for this is a marine rush to kill the tanks and not buld anit tank suqad, firslty we all hope we dont ahve the option to build, and secondly if they did rush at tanks it would be wildly stupid and you could jsut laguh as the most they could do is as you said scratcvh the paint. because they do so little damage, and ur attentions on tehm, so they're bound to die.

[Shim]

Blitzkrieg is a good RTS with realistic armour moddeling...Me thinks Relic should handle it similiar to the way they did.

[blood_angel]

I think we are assuming that all tanks, armour and wargear are all in tip top condition straight from the assembly line and with a years warrenty, arent we?
This universe is a big battlefield. A terminator suit of armour could be nicked and have scratches all over it from the last few hundred battles, and a gretchin could come along and fire at at hitting an internal stress fracture or crack buckling the armour and killing the marine.

OT: DO the Orks still have those warp gun that bypass armour and materalise grots inside the marines? That will be cool to see in the game.

[ShineDog]

no they dont.

terminators have ALWAYS been supposed to have weak spots in eye sockets and joints

[Maximus Decimus]

omg im srry but thats just being lazy. how does a tank become invincible if small arms cant touch it? it doesnt, it builds the need for anti-tank weapons and builds the need for strategy. ur just being lazy cause that sooooo stupid what u said. u have things to counter such measures as anti-tank weapons if ur too lazy to build/whatever them then u pay the price. u sound like one of those ppl where in most games ud build lots of one unit and rush the base knowing that in that game a rifle can kill a tank. stupid stupid stupid, if ur too lazy to get anti-tank weapons then u deserve to die. tsk tsk tsk, this game needs to be a REAL RTS note the emphasis on REAL TIME STRATEGY not real time mindless killing.

have u ever read some of the space marine books cause in some of them it states that marines treat their armor and tanks like sacred structures and do whatever they can to keep them in tip top condition, if there is a crack they fix it etc. what u r saying is that i can get a m16 and screw over a 30 yr old tank? cause that is what ur saying or even a 50 yr old tank, it cant be done. with the spirit machine in there they treat the tanks like sacred being and do whatever they can for them and even IF u have a run down tank u still cant kill it with a gun go ask a tank commander from the military or such they will tell u such a thing cant be done.

its stupid for u to think that things r invincible just cause ur shoota or marine cant kill it.... must be the stupidest thing i have ever heard. game blitzkrieg did a mighty fine job with realism and if u dont like it go play starcraft where 5 marines can kill a siege tank no problem.

- oh if u want to represent ppl shooting at a damaged tank them have it once a tank is down too very low hp that small arms can hurt it EVEN THOUGH if a tank was smoking a m16 couldnt touch it but they can do that to make u lazy ppl happy

:num:

[IWAssassin]

Reality is in terms of 40k even its reasonable to expect that 30 Marines with nothing but bolters COULD take down a Land Raider. They are mini RPGs as stated.

The problem with having unit X be INVINCIBLE against Unit Y is it takes a LOT of the fun and in fact strategy out of the game. Making it simply very difficult to kill unit X with unit Y accomplishes the same goal [its better to have an anti-tank weapon] but without the utterly pointless frustration [I have 5000 Orks but because I dont have a Rokkit Launcha it doesnt matter that 1 Land Raider will kill me anyway]

Fact is while infantry firing their M16s not be able to take it out [and the M16 is at best comparable to an Autogun, and in ways even a Lasgun is a better AT weapon as it WILL blister the immediate area it hits], infantry in general WILL be able to take out that tank, jamming vulnerable parts, sticking crap down the barrels, etc.

Not a far away representation to just let the Bolter do a very small amount of damage, Homeworld Style [where sure an Interceptor CAN damage a Battlecruiser, but the Battlecruiser will generally speaking kill more than its own worth in Interceptors]

[starrider]

bah, im lazy am i? i simpley said that if you shoot at something in the game, if the use health bars then eventually it will die. no matter whats shooting at it. oh and with regards to building things. how many units have you seen in 40k that are deciated to building besides teh occasional ruined factory terrain piece. Therefore if the game is a faithful representation of the table top game in most respects you wont be able to build AT ALL Also with regards to having read space marine books, ive read quite a few and yes the treat everry piece of armor with utmost respect. but thats not a computer game is it? hell half the things in those books couldnt even be re-enacted in the table top game their based upon. i am simple saying that if their happen to be health bars, and HP that anything has the possibilty of being killed by anything else im sorry if this concept is beyond you. and no i do not condone midless rushing.

[ObsceneName]

starcraft does work
i dont know about warcraft 3 but starcraft does
vultures do extreme amount of damage 100% to small targets while
larger targets they do only 25% percent
thats why marines can kill tanks its just harder
so lets say this
the starcraft marine does 100% percent damage agianst a zergling which is 7 damage now put a siege tank in front of it
the marine now does 50% less damage agaisnt the tank(well i dont know about marien damage vs seige tank) and still has to do damage to its armor and it will
while slowly it will
and thats how 40k should work about as balanced as it can get
and i dont care what you say a marines gonna be armed with gernades :P

edit: rushing is not mindless
and a if this is a building game
if a person gets a land raider before some one attacks they deserve to lose end of discussion

[Soban-sa]

samll arms fire cant take out a tank by them selfs but a m16 bullet put in the right spot can destroy a tanks treads! and that is the point of health bars.

[starrider]

aha! thats been my point all along.

[ankara halla]

Correct me if I´m wrong... but since day one of RT marines have never been able to take down a Land Rider with just bolter fire. Land Rider has allways been the very epitome of armour and quite impregnable to anything short of an anti-tank and up weapons.

I´d really hate to see Relic develop the game to a direction opposite to the wh40k universe we know.


Originally posted by Soban-sa
samll arms fire cant take out a tank by them selfs but a m16 bullet put in the right spot can destroy a tanks treads! and that is the point of health bars.

No it can´t.

[ObsceneName]

marines can to take down landraiders
vortex gerandes
but i know marines cant take out hive tyrants with vortex gernades
a 4+ invulnerable agaisnt vortex gernades
now we dont even have invulnerables
even tho we have the strongest psychic thing like ever

EDIT:
in fluff marines can take down landraiders
as unlike in 40k unless your orks
everything is in perfect working order even tho that dosnt make sence
and if we even see one more then one land raider a game ill be surprised because ya know space marnies are rare chapters are only what the maximum size of 1000

one more edit
if you take a pistol and shoot a thread piece long enough it wil fall off and look at that immoveable tank

[ankara halla]

Originally posted by ObsceneName
marines can to take down landraiders
vortex gerandes
but i know marines cant take out hive tyrants with vortex gernades
a 4+ invulnerable agaisnt vortex gernades
now we dont even have invulnerables
even tho we have the strongest psychic thing like ever

Yeah.. and with melta bombs and stuff, but that´s special equipment which certainly does fall under the definition of "anti-tank weapons or their equilavents".

Never have marines been able to take out Land Riders with just bolter fire.


Originally posted by ObsceneName
EDIT:
in fluff marines can take down landraiders
as unlike in 40k unless your orks
everything is in perfect working order even tho that dosnt make sence
and if we even see one more then one land raider a game ill be surprised because ya know space marnies are rare chapters are only what the maximum size of 1000

EDIT: :)
Sure and in tabletop games too, but not by firing bolters at it.
And yes, Land Riders should most certainly be very rare units indeed. A vanilla chapter has around 10 Land Raiders to work with (one per company) and that´s not much.

[ObsceneName]

when have marines been jsut armed with bolters?

[ankara halla]

Originally posted by ObsceneName
when have marines been jsut armed with bolters?

Since never. When have I, or anybody else, said they have?
The point of this conversation is that you need anti-tank weapons to take out tanks (especially Land Riders) and not all marines, as suberply equipped as they are, have those available.

For example, five tactical squads equipped with bolters, flamers and hvy.bolters would be in an impossible jam against a Land Rider. Doesn´t matter if you have fifty marines blasting away at the thing if they don´t have powerful enough weapons to penetrate the armour.
That is the way wh40k has allways been presented in tabletop and I would consider it a shame should that change in the computer screen.

[IWAssassin]

Yet the tabletop itself is a huge abstraction because giving a Land Raider 400 HPs and having each weapon do a variable amount of damage to the land raider every shot simply gets too complex.

The idea being a bolter has almost no chance of doing damage, but take 50 marines firing bolters and you eventually will blow off that TL Lascannon and eventually will ruin the track. Given enough time you'll utterly ruin the tank, but the 40k tabletop game has that as a situation where "yeah realistically, but then again we dont have 100 Marines shooting 500 rounds each into it, so why bother"

After all in a dice system as opposed to a HP system thats simply a 1/50,000 chance - how many dice do you want to roll, and how annoyed would you be when you roll that 50,000 the first shot, totally defying the realism of wearing it down.

[ankara halla]

Well, to get technical bolters especially would be useless against heavy armour since the tips don´t detonate unless they penetrate. Against a Land Raider what you get is basically an autogun firing large bullets :P

And while I agree that every tank, in real life as in fantasy, does have vunerable spots which can be effected by small arms fire there is however no way for these kinds of weapons to do any significant damage on the vehicle which would incapacitate it´s ability to make war.

The bolters would break from wear before doing anything more than scraping the paint from the tank :)

[IWAssassin]

You could always introduce the idea of "Destroyed" vs "Completely useless"

While it would take some time for bolters to reach a fuel tank and detonate that hoping it would gut the inside, it really wouldnt take that much work to damage the TL Heavy Bolters and TL lascannons [plenty of weakpoints on them] and then damage the track, either by jamming it or blowing a link off. At that point for all practical purposes the tank is "Destroyed"

Sure its easy to fix after the battle, but we're assuming battles dont last 6 hours.

[Maximus Decimus]

lol u are contridicting urself. u say ill use grenades, melta bombs, etc to blow it up... ill give ya a tip THOSE ARE ANTI TANK WEAPONS. now above me u say blow off the armored track? how with a bullet? no mybe with a grenade? yes but thats a anti tank weapon/anti infantry. by the way the spensors are armored but i guess u can shoot the barrel but thats as bad as saying ill use this m16 to blow off the barel of a abram no no no cant do. u say a m16 is comparable to a autogun yes but note the m16 abram correlation is the same as land raider bolter correlation. a land raider has better armor then a abram correct? yes. u say it takes away strategy? no it doesnt try playing blitzkrieg thats a great game that uses these rules and guess what has a HIT PT SYSTEM...wha! that cant be how can a gun shoot and not take hp? easy using programming to solve it therefore setting different armor values and stated IF armor = heavy then, guna has no effect. ur just lazy if u say that its taking away strategy if u cant use 5 marines to kill a tank ala starcraft(yes 5-6 marines kill a tank or 2).

also u can have the squads carry grenades to kill the tanks but then u have to have them run up and plant them on vital systems. someone also said that u can hit the fuel tank? one its armored and if im not mistaken its inside the vechile see the jan issue of white dwarf for the diagram.

[ankara halla]

Unlike in movies, fuel tanks don´t "explode" IRL.
Actually, in many modern attack vehicles (such as the Russian BMP -series) the fueltanks are located in the sides and rear doors to give extra protection against RGP rockets (which would fail to penetrate both sides of the fueltank making just a hole on the outer hull but leaving everybody inside alive) and even so allmost all combat vehicles have multiple fueltanks in them.

As to the weakpoints in the weapons, modern tanks don´t have any so I would only assume that vehicles made tens of thousands of years in the future wouldn´t either. Sure, the models themselfs do seem to have weakspots but it´s arguable if they are weak enough to totally take out said weapons. You might lose your targetting systems for the lascannons (as a modern tank might loose it´s IR/laser targetting arrays IRL) but that would hardly render the weapon unusable.

And as to tracks, you don´t jam a tanks track with anything smaller than a full sized tree trunk. Even 30mm DU/tungsten rounds would do next to nothing on a modern tanks tracks.
To actually blow a link off you´d need a heavy mine (10kg of TNT or something equilavent) placed directly on the track but this again I think could be represented by troops assaulting the tank with meltabombs and such.


But this is all IMHO and I won´t be too disappointed if Relic does go the way of hitpoints with Land Raiders and other vehicles. I understand the need to balance games and if that means not simulating anti-armor combat realistically then I can live with that :)

[Torgo]

As a note to those w/ bolter ammo
its .75 caseless ammo type
banana, drum, or straight mag.
there are types that are AP, anti-tank, anti-personel, etc.
they are not mini rpgs at all.
and hell, If we wanted realism, take 5 marines and have them push
the tank on it's side.
Or rip off the hatches and gun down the crew inside
or just have a retribution class battleship obliterate the entire
battlezone with an orbital bombardment.

Now on topic, I believe that yes they should have anti-tank units
as a must. Also do not compare modern day tanks and weapons
to 40k tanks and weapons, they are completely different. You could
compare a standard pattern las-gun which is the normal weapon
for guardsmen (for non-40kers) and compare it to the m16. The
m16 uses ammo where the las does not, it uses batteries, which
are almost the same as a normal ammo mag, but can be recharged by
teh heat of another battery being used by the las gun, thus charging each other indefinetly, effective eh?
And stop using bolters vs. land raider, bolters are rare weapons
in the emperium of man, they're like OICW's, use las', they're common place.

[starrider]

thats what havocs are. anti tank marines basicly.

[Tribunal]

Hmmmm.... Why are comparing 40k weapons to modern weapons? For what can damage what, just look at the damage and armor charts and use that as a basis of what can damage what.

All units should have their own strength rating to resist damage (specific for each class/race/vehicle type), and then their own special armor rating would be added to it for a total armor rating. Then there would be the weapons, which would have a variable damage rating depending on the weapon.

The attacker would attack, and the attack hits. The random damage is calculated, the total damage is compared to the total armor/strength rating of the defender, and then any amount ABOVE the rating is applied to the hit points of the unit until their hit points are reduced to zero.

This would be a very practical, reasonable way to have life go in the game, and armor would not just be additional life for the units, and you would not follow the starcraft style (having weapons be more effective against one type and less on another) of damage. Also, you could take the varying amounts of damage by the weapons as how true the shot was, thickness of armor in that location etc. Not to mention, it would really be neat to see a dreddy taking a few clips of bolter fire on its arm, watch it take damage until it blew off, rather than having one lucky shot getting through and watching the arm go that way.

[Chobo-Elite]

err, maximus you're not getting the point. this is a game, not real life so you can quit comparing game mechanics to real life okay? To have terminator and tanks totally invincible to other units will creat some balancing problems.

You're looking at this the wrong way, you probably see a squad of 10 marines with bolters taking down a land raider in 10 seconds or so. Of course relic will never make a land raider so pathetically weak so it would probably take a squad of 10 marines with bolters to around 20 minutes in game to destroy the land raider. that IMO is more than enough time to kill all the marines with the other forces you should have. a land raider should be capable of killing the whole squad of marines fast enough that the damage isnt too significant.

Also who said about building units?

[Maximus Decimus]

where r not comparing m16s to bolters therefore saying they are equal, we are compaing the effectiveness of a m16 to tank and bolter to land raider cause they would be the same. reason: different tank armor reduces the capabilities of a bolter therefore making a bolter on tank the same as m16 on todays tanks.

what u describe above makes sense for the most part but not for the last sentece cause u stated it would be cool to see a dread arm come off after recieving hits from a bolter.. u dont mean to use the same method to a tank do u? cause that wouldnt be real, watching bolter fire hit the tank until it somehow blew up?? no. clean and simple regular arms fire cannot take out tanks. even in fluff they have a marine say run up open hatch and chuck grenades down to kill the crew therefore making the tank useless. u dont see "and then the squad drew theyr bolters and fired upon the land raider until the armor gave way and destroyed the land raider/pred/leman russ/whatever tank".

[z-beam]

Originally posted by Maximus Decimus
yeah, to z-beam um yes soldiers in real life go out with one weapon and a side arm,realistic to see one squad carrying all sluggas or bolters etc.

:flamer:

thats two weapons allready. grenades are allways around. even for the lowliest grunt. a combat knife will allways be present as well. 4. one HtH, one long range and one anti vehicle weapon.

and thats a modern soldier. not a highly skilled weapons expert like a space marine. a unit having a weakness is one thing, but being intirely useless is too much. especially for the most prolific single unit in the army.

so for a sm he's got frags, a bolter and a bolt pistol as a side arm. and for orks a choppa (combat knife)is allways gonna be handy.

so a mass of goons arnt goin to stand around shooting when they can get the job done fast.

[Tribunal]

Wasn't saying that tanks could be blown up by massive bolter/stormbolter fire, just that some dreddies don't have the best of armor on their extremities, and if some of the bolters penetrated the arm's armor, that it would great to see some damage effects until the arm came off with a bang.

Even the ol' whirlwind wouldn't have much of a chance against any tank, that's what las-cannons and krak missiles are for.

[Maximus Decimus]

alright ok tribunal and z-beam i understand. z-beam when u said diff weapons i thought u were thinking of squads(eg. imps) having lasguns, autoguns, etc like multiple assault rifles. alright though i get what u meant.

[Urulf]

Well if you have ever seen a weapon list of warhammer 40k you will notice a bolter could penetrate the armors of level 6, 5 and 4 (If I remember well) without a save throw. That mean the weapon is too powerfull for that kind of armor and it will be pierced by bolter ammo and the armor couldn't stop it. If the armor is better then the owner could use a save throw of 1d6 and if it gets equal or more than is save value its not gets any hurt. If not if will suffer 1 wound, AS an example: the gretchin shell impact into the joint of the terminator armor and pierce it, causing the SM to fall into the ground ( I wouldn't like to help this SM to come standing up again, a termie armor weigh over 200 kg==400 lb), causing it to be a casuality. Notice he isn't necesary dead, but he will stand paralized until the end of the confrontation... and a bit annoyed surely too)

In case of vehicles you throw 1d6 plus the attack force. If this is more than the armor value of the vehicle it gets an internal impact(like if a shell bounce into the vehicle and impact any vital system... crew.. ammo store... anything)

This is an extract of the war40k core books (3º ver)
Hope that helps

[DarthFelth]

i never really liked 3rd ed rules ;)

[No Surrender]

Have any of u ever heard of the lucky glanceing hit rule? I've taken down a LR with a Multi Laser before.

[z-beam]

i agree about the vehicle damadge aspect. small arms could damadge side armour but not frontal armour and would be nice to see dreds keep on fighting without the main assault cannon.
and tanks being immobilised but not destroyed. it would be cool to see a life have separate intervals that had different effects. for example a predator being immobilised, then weapons disabled and finally the hull expoding and doing a bit of splash damadge.

[Maximus Decimus]

small arms could damadge side armour but not frontal armour

i ask u have u every taken a land raider out with a bolter? no. fluff wise has a marine ever shot a bolter round at a heavy tank and blown it up? no that i heard of. if u have i want a reference to the book, page # and paragraph. trust me small arms cannot take out heavy tanks. mybe a bolter round will damage a rhino somehow but i dont see that happening but not a heavy tank.

[dewolfe]

i ask u have u every taken a land raider out with a bolter? no. fluff wise has a marine ever shot a bolter round at a heavy tank and blown it up? no that i heard of. if u have i want a reference to the book, page # and paragraph. trust me small arms cannot take out heavy tanks. mybe a bolter round will damage a rhino somehow but i dont see that happening but not a heavy tank.

At the start of the novel Space Wolf, Ragnar jumps on top of a chaos Predator, pulls the turret hatch off, and drops two grenades into it. Of course, he damaged his armour's servo motors and then he got snipered, but still...

Also, bolters can glance the rear armour of most heavy tanks.

[Maximus Decimus]

iv read the book and do 2 grenades sound like a bolter? no 2 grenades are infact good tank killer weapons when used up close ala melta bombs etc. he never go snipered but whatever. a bolter can only damage a rhino(APC) note it is not a heavy tank but it can rip through the back hatch of leman russes etc. still do u want to see 10 guard with lasguns kill a land raider? no. that is the approach of starcraft which was extremely stupid even though i liked the game overall.

[Anthonace]

land raiders have an all round armor of 14 (the highest value possible) in the tabletop game a bolter can only glance an armor of 10 and this is the same ith most other weapons that the 'standard' infantry carry so the basic infantry should not be able to harm a land raider At all unless they carried a special anti tank weapon with them eg melta boms

[Maximus Decimus]

i think this topic isnt worth keeping alive cause there will always be ppl who think guard and the rest cant simply shoot at a tank and blow it up. if this was the case ppl wouldnt bother building tanks and much rather just build artillery and equip more missle launchers to forces. u cant kill a tank with a regular rifle. the 40k and now technologies are comparable because a bolter does to a land raider what a m16 does to a abram. go ask anyone who works in the military and operates within the armor regiments they will tell u such a thing cannot be done, u cant shoot the track of a land raider off with a gun never mind that even a high caliber sniper rifle wont do it.

Relic devs? what are ur views regarding m16s being anti tank weapons? and bolters being anti tank weapons?

[DarthFelth]

and i took down a Dreadnoght with a Combi bolter on my Rhino :D

[Maximus Decimus]

Clarify please.

1) im presuming u did this from behind right? and im also presuming this is a storm bolter. A dreadnought is as much a vechile as a Crises suit is. i hope with the new codex coming out they change this for dreads. even so from behind u could only ever get a glancing hit so ok ingame if u hit a dread from behind with such fire then u do .5 damage of bolters regular damage. if they do not incorporate diff army values so small arms cant touch tanks and such then they should have vechiles have a defence value 95% of the damage value of small arms so they do 5% damage of their initial attack strength.

[DarthFelth]

i collect chaos, chaos dont have storm bolters for starts, well as its armour 12 on the front and a bolter is strength 4, but armour 10 from the back, i thought that would really say it all ;) pitty my other rhino didnt kill the otherone, ohh well i guess thats what Termies with metlaguns are for :D

Also a Dreadnought is a Vehicle, if you read the new Vehicles rules that really explains it :p even if they dont really effect orks but effect everyone else, funny that ....

[IWAssassin]

Game Mechanics point. This is NOT 40k. We dont have a game that lasts 6 turns, no matter what. We have a game that likely will draw things out to the death.

So when the resources are used up, I have 5000 Marines and you have 1 Land Raider. Should we spend the next 3 hours having the Land Raider kill the marines? No. Its extremely frustrating for both players.

As for the grenade thing, if you read your fluff the Bolter is essentially a 20mm Grenade Launcher [and its almost 20mm to boot (19.05)] Its one of those weapons that WILL wear a tank down, regardless of the thickness of the armor. It simply will take time.

No its not true to 40k, its true to logic, true to fun. Ever played a game of 40k where you didnt stand a chance even before you deployed? Wasnt very fun was it? Saying common weapons have NO chance to damage a Land Raider is the exact same idea.

Actually if you want to apply reason, Fantasy has a rule for rolls "over 6" - if we extended the system, a Bolter would have a 1/432 chance of killing a Land Raider if it hit. Would it make you happier if that system was adopted?

[Maximus Decimus]

gees, ok but dont u see if they have bolters do this they will have lasguns blow up a tank the very same way? think u built a force all armored but the dude has 2 : 1 ratio of guard, logically ur armored would kill the guard but no we must adopt the small arms kill heavy tanks rule therefore ur armored assault would die to a mass of flashlights. ok now ur saying a bolter is more effective then a melta bomb at killing vechiles? no. note in a real game say u have a tactical squad with no heavy weapons or grenades left and the enemy has a land raider left what r u going to do? ull die. its the same thing with the game and how the hell will u get 5k marines anyway especially if u got the 5 k u MUST have 1 HEAVY WEAPON somewhere or u wouldnt be able to kill any of his other armor. ur logic is flawed and how come blitzkrieg did this fine? hm?. what u r saying can be easily overcome hmm u either have a lascannon laying around or take 2 seconds to build one. plus the objective will be either capture the objectives, take out central base, etc not kill every man there cause if thats the case what if i have one guard laying around in this huge map somewhere.

[IWAssassin]

We dont know how building works, it might be I start with units and thats what I have. So you kill my 500 LC Marines with an Infantry swarm, and thats all you do. Now I have 5000 Marines left who cant do a damn thing against your tank - thats not fun at all, thats a headache. Similarly assume we can build but no resources are left. Same story.

Yes I AM saying Lasguns will eventually take out a tank. Anything will eventually take out a tank. Thats a good thing for game balance as well as for the fun of the game. In 40k no you arent screwed if you have a Land Raider versus 100 Guardsmen with Lasguns, because the fact is in those 6 turns you most likely wont kill enough Guardsmen for the victory. Sure I cant kill the Land Raider but I still can win. Assuming this is a to the death game, there needs to be a way that you always CAN win.

[Maximus Decimus]

true ill give ya that. now u mentioned objectives in the tabletop what would stop them from making objectives in the pc game? that would solve the problem and make everyone happy cause id get my realistic tanks and ud get a way to get out of a stressful moment like that. if its to the death type mission and if there r huge maps then i could also hide a guy somewhere therefore if there r big maps objectives r needed. a game that had huge maps but no objectives but kill the guy was Dark Reign now thats a stressful game. objectives will ultimitaly solve both our problems. no pt to argue this any further because u have ur views on tanks and i have mine, all i want is a really realistic game or if they have infantry kill tanks it better be hard for a squad to kill a lone tank or have it so a heavy tank will always in shooting kill a squad before going down. that would make me happy. we will see what relic does with the game but i just dont want a 5 yes 5 guys kill a lone tank like starcraft.

[starrider]

i belive that if they made it like the table top game in the way you suggest. the game might fail. thats not good for business is it? we havent ever said a bolter is better than anytihng like you have so repeatedly stated. we have just said that it will eventually take out a tank. not hat you cna rush with bolteres and win. not htat bolters are better than lascannons, melta guns/bombs or anytihng else. keep in mind all we have said that in the game, they will eventually kill a tank with a bolter.


and another thing, in any game besides sports and racing(questionable) has realisum been a good thing?

[Noir]

America's Army...

[Maximus Decimus]

yeah, especially in FPS the want realism such as destructable and interactive environments with smart AI and all those other cool things. a game that has seccesfully created a "no infantry man carrying small arms can kill a tank" system is Blitzkrieg, thats a fun game and there is no base building there. the reason blitzkrieg did this is because the fan base was damending a realistic WWII RTS and i think more and more strategy fans are damanding realism. the game would not fail because if blitzkreig did it so can 40k right? it did have some bugs at release but everything has been patched up. well we will see what relic has in store for us and i think there is a good chance for this game to be a big hit with such a developer behind it.

[z-beam]

Originally posted by Maximus Decimus


i ask u have u every taken a land raider out with a bolter? no.

i did not say land raider, i mentioned tank. and i do not need to rant on specifically about what tanks can be damadged because it is obvious that there are vehicles and tanks that can be damadged.

please stop being so agresive. i'm sure it's not just me who is getting tired of wasted typing in order to try and create some peacfull understanding. this is a forum not an oppurtunity for poo-slinging.

[Maximus Decimus]

alright can u finish by readin the rest of the posts and then u will note that iv given up trying to prove a pt and leave it in the hands of Relic.

[z-beam]

i definatly did read the rest... one thing is certain. the title of this thread is realism, and thats a bit vague. do we mean real life (be it economic or military) or faithful in concept but not practice to the game that started it all: 40k.

it's ended up a bit of both and and that is i good thing.

some things id like to say:

1. a lasgun is so different than a bolter, it's weaker, has no ability to penetrate armour , is optimised for number of shots, not power and finally has one type of ammo: power batteries. (i am talking about the COMMON lasgun NOT variants)

2. i definatly think building is the way this game will go, it's what the kiddies like in general and is easier for them to keep playing if they do something stupid. (like spend all theyre credits on basic infantry).

3. as for real life, what is the first upgrade u take for terrans in starcraft? u-238 shell thats what. and boy do the take chunks out of vehicles. space marines are a tad smarter than the u.s. military and terran marines and so they prefer exotic materials like an adamantine/diamantine tip on there very large bolter rounds. this has the advantage of not creating MUTANTS in "liberated" territories, which they or some one else would have to continually deal with. :yech: :wtf2:

4. i am with you maxi on the raider issue, bog standard bolters should only be able to do superficial damadge to its armour. it would be nice to see players rewarded for tacticle prescience, as a heavy weapon (infantry based) cant fire on the move but the raider can. devastator squads need to be deployed prior to enemies attemting to attack you.

not sure about the new figures but old dev's had extra armour on the ankles that would deploy for stability. hence move or fire (or fall over)

[Tribunal]

I really, REALLY hope they don't go with the good old starcraft/warcraft/dune build and let loose sort of gameplay. What I AM hoping for is more of a Ground Control style gameplay, where you have x slots for various units, then you can choose to rename the units, decide what optional weapons they would have, and more. With the 40k game, I would love to be able to name each char, be able to outfit each of them (or at least the hero types leading the units), and choose what squad types to have.

Depending on the mission, there might be guardsmen (for imperial forces) that you would be given for fodder -- err, for additional reinforcements, and a setup like this would be great for a drop-in online game. Anyone that played Ground Control could attest to how great the drop-in and play atmosphere was... Even though there was no option to have bots as an additional player, not really any defined sides or possible mission objectives for an online game.

I'm hoping for some sort of assault type mission for online play where you would be assigned cetain objectives to complete, and the opposing forces (either bots or players) had to do their best to stop you and your allies, and then you would switch. I know that's a bit off topic, but having missions like that would add to the longevity (especially if players could design their own online maps -- maybe with a simple editor like those used in starcraft).

Edit -- now, as far as the lasgun thing goes, I think most of the damage etc of the topic was talking about lasCANNONS, which are quite a bit more effective in anti-armor capability than the good old vanilla bolter.

[Maximus Decimus]

u make some good pts z-beam but how hard is it to stop ur devs and fire away? no too hard unless it a virtual tabletop 40k which i can bet my SW its not. anyway id just like to show those ppl who think bolters can take tanks, take a look


While its firepower against personnel targets is devastating, its shells are too light to harm armored vehicles. - Games Workshop

anyway just had to prove a pt, im not gonna argue on wether it should or shouldnt be in the game cause lets just leave that up to Relic.

[Tribunal]

It's kind of funny, but the devastating verus armored and devastating versus infantry is really apparent in the 2nd ed rules (at least as far as the eldar goes). I was glancing through the rulebook and special Phoenix Lords war gear, and some of the weapons, which would slaughter troops by the dozen, would have almost no effect on any sort of armored vehicles. I know it must have been for balancing issues, but still it was interesting to see that after reading this topic for a while.

[z-beam]

tribunal, somebody did mention lasguns some where there.

and on the sm heavy weapons (devastators) for sure, easy to stop the unit so it can fire. but what if it takes a crucial second or two to deploy/ brace/ get stable footing before firing (ala starcraft seige tanks).

like wise it would be funny to see porly trained orks falling over from firing heavy weapons

[Maximus Decimus]

lol that would be rlly funny seeing a ork fall over from firing a heavy weapon. well taking that crucial second ok isnt that what is part of a RTS, if those tanks kill ur devs first then thats a loss for the person mybe because he didnt plan out well and then u can always have ur troops go charge at the tank with bombs right? i dont want tanks to be invincible just dont want to see guard with flashlights killing raiders and russes when its say 20 of them to 3 of ur tanks. wel see what relic has in store for us pretty soon as marchs PCGAMER will have a more in depth preview of DoW.

[DarthFelth]

lol, that would be great

[Tribunal]

z-beam I was making a reference to someone's post saying that lasguns were ineffective against tanks, who was replying to someone about lasCANNONS, just in case he/she did not notice that slight difference.

As far as the invincible tanks thing goes, the times that I did play with the dreddies on up, it almost seemed like a race to see who could kill the big guns first, and the person who lost the armor penetrating weapons first always lost, because the remaining dreddies etc would walk around the board, killing everybidy else (except for the time that my opponent did that with eldar against my tyranids -- I swarmed his dreddie with my genestealers, say 7 or 8 of them, and he was so bogged down in hand to hand he was as good as out of the game!)

I really hope that grenades etc are included for the non devastator squads, it would at least give you a chance when your devastator squads bit the dust.

[DarthFelth]

im not being funny, but in 2nd ed, i dont ever remember vehicles being he game winner they can be now, there are just certain things in 3rd ed that balance as well, and well i dont think characters are really any better, just no instead of wargear cards, characters tend to kill most troops before they get a chance to strike back, i reeber with the old rules (before gay cards like displacer fields *sighs*) it was alot esier to take down characters in combat with troops, i really think the new limitations and the old rules would have been so much better

[ObsceneName]

vehicles are not game winners
in 3rd edition
armoed compony while strong has one weakness oh i dont know las cannons plasma cannons every strong gun in the game and every one seems to have one..
oh well
not to mention my tau
inflitate then mvoe befor ethe game even begins so i can deploy right behind that leman russ and shoot ti with either a rail gun or
charge with emp gernades :P
death by pathfinders

[DarthFelth]

well depends on the armies you have played, trust me, if you ahd played some of the people i played you would think that, and i have played the same armies used by different people, and wiped the floor with them, its not even about tactics, trust me i know, perhaps i have played some very beardy people

[ShineDog]

seen the proposed changes to 4th?

vehicles will be coming back with a vengeance, and the rhino rush looks like its no longer that valid. boo hoo BA players :)

[Tribunal]

I think I will want to pick up some vehicles, just because One: they will be a great bullet magnet -- do you want to attack the firewarriors, or the large tank(s) that are ripping your vehicles/dreddies apart, Two: I have never really had any vehicles in the past, and I think it will be great to have my armies include them, and Three: great shields for forces that are getting beat down on -- almost lost half alpha-squad -- get that tank in front and give them a bit of support and regroup for that last turn. Still though, all it takes is one or two melta bombs or some devastator squads and it's a couple hundred points down the tube, all on that one unit.

(as long as displacer fields etc are no longer wargear cards for heroes etc, I will be very happy as well. I was getting so sick of having my bud's SW champion just walk into the midst of my Tyranids and not being able to touch him at ALL. It just wasn't right, and he was SO smug about it.)

[DarthFelth]

my only army that ever really used Vehicles was my space wolves, Bjorn, 3 Whirlwinds 1 Predator and a few Rhinos, but my Rhinos turned Khorne when i got a Berzkers army, never really have been a big fan of vehicles (part for when i was like 13) then again thats when i had 20 wolve guard 5 with cyclones 5 with assault cannons, 4 with heavy flamers and teh rest with storm bolters and chainfists.

and dude, you dont have wargear cards like that, characters against nids can be taken down with ease now. i wouldnt worry about it, everything is pretty much toned down, just things like power weapons just seem so wierd after playing 2nd ed for along time