# 5ed defensive weapon fluff



## arhain (May 6, 2008)

ok so let me get this right my tank has 3 gunners and a driver yet i cant drive forward and shoot everything in front of me:shok:

in the 21st century we have tanks that can move as fast as a cars
and shoot everything but in the grim darkness of the far future my utra advanced tank cant even move at walking pace and shoot:ireful2:

has gw gone:crazy:


----------



## Trigger (Mar 12, 2008)

The last set of tank rules I actually liked were 2nd ed. and they were horrifically complicated compared to now (although as a ten year old I could understand them). GW will dumb down to the point where you can play in your sleep (bring back 10+d20 penetration I say!). Thats the way its going and I'm not gonna moan, I'll just paint my armies and play a different system. 
Warhammer Historical or play with the old rules probably

Just so you know, most modern MBT's have a main weapon, a coaxial weapon and a pintle mount. You will rarely see the tank using all its weapon systems at once. This is because the main weapon and coaxial weapon are all fired from the same control, by the gunner, with a system selector to choose which. The commander will be too busy selecting targets and 'commanding' to get on his pintle mount. Add to that, the fact that a tank should only really be engaging targets at range and usually while stationary if they can.

If you consider that a 6 turn 40K game is probably anywhere from 2 to 3 minutes in real time its actually quite realistic


----------



## Deprived_angels (Feb 13, 2008)

*tanks*



arhain said:


> ok so let me get this right my tank has 3 gunners and a driver yet i cant drive forward and shoot everything in front of me:shok:
> 
> in the 21st century we have tanks that can move as fast as a cars
> and shoot everything but in the grim darkness of the far future my utra advanced tank cant even move at walking pace and shoot:ireful2:
> ...


Thats right if now all tanks can move and shoot i one why cant my 2 land raiders move forwards 12' and shoot all the lascannons, i mean their frickin bringers of death with armour streght of 14 on all sides and the cant move 
12' f***ing inchs and shoot 

GW gotta change some rules


----------



## Tanrel (May 8, 2008)

well, just like Trigger said, 6 turns is basically 3 minutes. So, figuring in real life, it's incredibly hard to hit a moving target while the tank is also moving. And a tank going even the speed of a soldier bookin it across the battlefield, it's still hard to hit stuff that are moving especially when you're firing in between buildings and trees and the like. ^_^


----------



## Tigirus (Apr 13, 2008)

yea, cause it's roughly two feet to a inch so that means that the foot soldiers are moving 6 feet a turn and at marching speed that's 10 seconds a turn. and 6 tuns is roughly a minute so if a land raider is moving 12 inches a turn, or 2.4 feet per second. that's about 8640 miles a hour, as you can see the math in warhammer makes no sense what-so-ever, a tank simply can't move and shoot at top speed cause GW says so


----------



## Cadian81st (Dec 24, 2006)

arhain said:


> has gw gone:crazy:


lil bit yeah...


----------



## Dies Irae (May 21, 2008)

Trigger said:


> If you consider that a 6 turn 40K game is probably anywhere from 2 to 3 minutes in real time its actually quite realistic


2 to 3 minutes?????

So we play during 3 hours for 3 minutes of real time? :crazy:

But that vehicule rule is realy stupid, only a few weapons dont have more than S 4 on vehicule... strom bolters, twin linked bolters...Heavy stubbers?


----------



## NurgleKing (Jun 2, 2008)

GW are moving from a vehicle based game to an infantry based game, vehicles were the sugar in 4th edition, now infantry will be in 5th.


----------



## lightmonkey (Apr 1, 2008)

its does not sound to bad... it may mean my nids live longer.....


----------



## humakt (Jan 2, 2008)

Im personally not as worried about this as others are. For a start it stops Eldar skimmers having so many shooty attacks. It hurts my Tau devilfish, but Im not going to take a warfish so Im not overly concerned.

Roll on 5th edition when my battlecannons can blow things up ad infinitum.


----------



## cccp (Dec 15, 2006)

guys, stop complaining. it means you have to think a little more tactically. when you actually play the game, you'll see there isnt loads different.

anyway, you have never been able to ever move a LR 12" and shoot. its not an MBT, its a glorified transport.


----------



## Trigger (Mar 12, 2008)

Dies Irae said:


> 2 to 3 minutes?????
> 
> So we play during 3 hours for 3 minutes of real time? :crazy:
> 
> But that vehicule rule is realy stupid, only a few weapons dont have more than S 4 on vehicule... strom bolters, twin linked bolters...Heavy stubbers?


Yes, we do play three hours to represent three minutes of time. Sorry but its true.


----------



## maddermax (May 12, 2008)

Tigirus said:


> yea, cause it's roughly two feet to a inch so that means that the foot soldiers are moving 6 feet a turn and at marching speed that's 10 seconds a turn. and 6 tuns is roughly a minute so if a land raider is moving 12 inches a turn, or 2.4 feet per second. that's about 8640 miles a hour, as you can see the math in warhammer makes no sense what-so-ever, a tank simply can't move and shoot at top speed cause GW says so


man, I think your math is right off. using your figures, 12 inches=24 feet, so over 6 turns that's 144 feet. 144 per minute is 2.6km/h (~1.6 mph). If you ment to say 6ft, thats still only 8km/h (5mph)

If on the other hand, we consider the max run speed of an imperial guardsman (12 inch with the new run rules rumored in 5th ed) and assume he moves at the same rate as the fastest person ever recorded (12 m/s) despite gear/equipment/rough ground (assume better genetics/combat drugs whatever) ect, we find they're moving at 42 km/h (~27mph) of course, this doesn't fit with the scale/timing whatever given, but is a bit more reasonable.

This would of course mean that a tank, moving at 6 inch a turn is going 21km/h (13.5 mph)....can only fire one machine gun.

I can understand only firing ordinance, and nothing else, it takes a lot more crew/concentration to fire the big guns. but with a predator with sponsons, we can assume at least 3 crew. even if the driver can't help with the shooting, they should be able to fire the other 2 guns without problems at that speed. at 40km/h over rough ground, I could understand that aim would be thrown off, but at 20 with a stable gun platform, it should be possible to hit something (admittedly I've never tried firing from a moving vehicle, so I really wouldn't know, so feel free to prove me wrong if you do know).


In game terms I see this rule stopping most tanks (aside from those with ordinance, which are completely unaffected) from rolling forward slowly with the infantry line, mutually supporting each other, and rather turn them into glorified pillboxes. Just my opinion.


----------



## cccp (Dec 15, 2006)

the run rules sound like a basket of fun. fleet for all.


----------



## maddermax (May 12, 2008)

oh, I should have mentioned, with the RAR (Rules as Rumored ) it'll only affect some tanks, not nearly all. Space taxis (rhinos and LRs if you use them that way) will still just roll up with no change, ordinance bearers will still be able to roll up and fire as before, and most others have only 1 main weapon anyway (many eldar vehicles for instance) and don't really need the second weapon to be effective (you'll see a lot more falcons with only twin-linked catapults rather than cannons though).

however, anti-infantry tanks (pred destructor/baal, exterminator ect.) will be the tanks that suffer (LR crusaders hurricane bolters are s4 aren't they? and therefore unnaffected). So pity anyone who owns a few of them. oh, and ranged dreads, if they can only fire 1 weapon after moving.

Fluff wise, it really doesn't fit the images of tanks rolling forward slowly with the troops, pouring out fire on all sides.


----------



## darklove (May 7, 2008)

Should this be moved to the fluff forum? This is not really news or rumour.


----------



## Elchimpster (Jan 31, 2007)

Nah, it's still rumors at this point, no worries.

One thing people forget is that the core of the game is based upon the infantry: the individual space marine or squad. The guardsman platoon, the firewarrior and squad. Vehicles are additions to the game, expansions. 40k has always largely been an infantry game (with vehicles thrown in for flavor). This has varied per ruleset but you have to realize that infantry really has no place in tank battles...so you don't want to turn 40k in to a largely tank game, else the individual trooper and squad become useless. This is why Epic was created in the first place.

Another thing to realize is that 40k battles are usually akin to WW1 and WW2 battles. Trenchlines, bunkers and tanks are largely moving pillboxes or mobile gun batteries. Think of the tanks as WW1 versions.

Last off, GW is in business to sell minis. Infantry are pretty much useless in tank battles, and the lions share of figs are infantry. Sure, they want to sell some big models, but they have to keep the heart of the game going too. Boxes of troops need to be sold most of all.


----------



## Trigger (Mar 12, 2008)

Too true. Unfortunately some tanks were so good they formed the whole basis for peoples tactics. Look on this as an opportunity to improve your generalship. Apocalypse is the place to use your massed tanks of death. As in real life, the tanks will hop in 'bounds' giving mutual support to each other.

My point was that the rules aren't actually that unrealistic.


----------



## Tanrel (May 8, 2008)

Tigirus said:


> yea, cause it's roughly two feet to a inch so that means that the foot soldiers are moving 6 feet a turn and at marching speed that's 10 seconds a turn. and 6 tuns is roughly a minute so if a land raider is moving 12 inches a turn, or 2.4 feet per second. that's about 8640 miles a hour, as you can see the math in warhammer makes no sense what-so-ever, a tank simply can't move and shoot at top speed cause GW says so


um, soldiers are moving 12ft every 6", so they're running at 1.2 ft per second which is 72 feet a minute which is 4320 feet per hour. thats roughly .8 mph. and as for tanks they're going 2.4 feet per second which is 144 feet per minute which is 8640 feet per hour. which turns into about 1.6 mph.


----------



## Engelus (Jul 26, 2007)

Tigirus said:


> yea, cause it's roughly two feet to a inch so that means that the foot soldiers are moving 6 feet a turn and at marching speed that's 10 seconds a turn. and 6 tuns is roughly a minute so if a land raider is moving 12 inches a turn, or 2.4 feet per second. that's about 8640 miles a hour, as you can see the math in warhammer makes no sense what-so-ever, a tank simply can't move and shoot at top speed cause GW says so


where did you get your numbers from?
that puts space marines at roughly 2'-3" tall

I think 5' per inch is more accurate. 

which means they run 30 feet in one turn 60 feet with a good run role. 90 feet with a charge.


----------



## Lord Reevan (May 1, 2008)

You do know all this calculating is to try and make little plastic spacemen seem more realistic? Its a game that tries to make it fair for people with few tanks and for people with lots of tanks. It's set 38000 years into the future so comparing them to now is pointless... Evolutuion to faster beings, different gravity ratings, drugs, bionics they all modify movement so you can't really calculate the movement with all those variables. just take it as it is because it is only a game and not meant to be a miniature version of the future:biggrin:


----------



## Deprived_angels (Feb 13, 2008)

Lord Reevan said:


> You do know all this calculating is to try and make little plastic spacemen seem more realistic? Its a game that tries to make it fair for people with few tanks and for people with lots of tanks. It's set 38000 years into the future so comparing them to now is pointless... Evolutuion to faster beings, different gravity ratings, drugs, bionics they all modify movement so you can't really calculate the movement with all those variables. just take it as it is because it is only a game and not meant to be a miniature version of the future:biggrin:



well you never know this could all happen in lets say 20 years then what, but i think GW should change the rules for LR because they hav armour 14 all sides thier supposed to charge in and crush and shot as they lay covering fire for marines disembarking and running forwards think about it ????


----------



## Lord Reevan (May 1, 2008)

I'm just saying its a game set in a time nowhere near ours. it was made to be enjoyed not to to be so realistic that they move appropriate amounts. maybe they can't fire and move much coz tanks are way different and more complex than now and need several people to control it at speeds.


----------



## arhain (May 6, 2008)

all i want is to be able to do is move my tank (leman russ) 6" and fire everything (excluding the battle cannon) is that too much to ask


----------



## Lord Reevan (May 1, 2008)

nothing's been confirmed officialy yet so you could.


----------



## Deprived_angels (Feb 13, 2008)

arhain said:


> all i want is to be able to do is move my tank (leman russ) 6" and fire everything (excluding the battle cannon) is that too much to ask


u can move 6' and shot all ur secondary weapons(i think) but juts stay stationary behind a buildng and us ur battle cannon like a mortor and incinerate them :laugh:


----------



## Son of mortarion (Apr 24, 2008)

Trigger said:


> The last set of tank rules I actually liked were 2nd ed. and they were horrifically complicated compared to now (although as a ten year old I could understand them). GW will dumb down to the point where you can play in your sleep (bring back 10+d20 penetration I say!). Thats the way its going and I'm not gonna moan, I'll just paint my armies and play a different system.
> Warhammer Historical or play with the old rules probably
> 
> Just so you know, most modern MBT's have a main weapon, a coaxial weapon and a pintle mount. You will rarely see the tank using all its weapon systems at once. This is because the main weapon and coaxial weapon are all fired from the same control, by the gunner, with a system selector to choose which. The commander will be too busy selecting targets and 'commanding' to get on his pintle mount. Add to that, the fact that a tank should only really be engaging targets at range and usually while stationary if they can.
> ...


Good points and pretty much right on. From my experience, there are two factors that you also did not mention, the main weapon generates enough smoke that if the tank were stationary, the entire front of the tank is obscured, and most "tank" in 40k either are NOT tanks, or lack the sophisticated fire control systems that a modern MBT possesses. Also, Tanks prefer to engage targets that are stationary, while moving themselves, as this prevents return fire.


----------



## Deprived_angels (Feb 13, 2008)

Son of mortarion said:


> Good points and pretty much right on. From my experience, there are two factors that you also did not mention, the main weapon generates enough smoke that if the tank were stationary, the entire front of the tank is obscured, and most "tank" in 40k either are NOT tanks, or lack the sophisticated fire control systems that a modern MBT possesses. Also, Tanks prefer to engage targets that are stationary, while moving themselves, as this prevents return fire.


But if u hav weapons on ur tanks that dont need line of site like basilisk why move when u can hide and shell them to death


----------



## dirty-dog- (May 14, 2008)

sorry guys but i can't say that 5th is suck a bad idea

i mean when 4th was coming out there was complaining and now every one likes it

and anyway simpler rules means easier for new people to understand. which then means more people to battle against. and if all comes to worse i bet most people will go back to 4th.

i no that me, caledor and happy chopper probably will if it does.


----------



## the cabbage (Dec 29, 2006)

The 40K universe is ahead of our time in many ways but in many specific ways technology has degenerated.

It is only a game remember. *I imagine *40K tanks to more like WW1 tanks in many ways. GW also point out in the rule books that many things such as the fog of war are impossible to get 100% correct and are represented by things like curtailed movement and weapon ranges.

The whole realism thing is for another thread.


----------



## darklove (May 7, 2008)

I still think that none of this is news or rumour. The title of the thread is even 'fluff'. I think it needs to be moved to fluff.


----------



## Dezartfox (Jan 19, 2008)

Dudes, it's rules.. fluff and rules have never gone together and never will, space marines are meant to be super soldiers.. C'tan are meant to be GODS ¬_¬

Keep fluff away from the rules, as it only causes arguments, 
We're talking about a game, there's no point comparing it real life or scale, it's a fictional game with fictional races


----------



## Lord Reevan (May 1, 2008)

Dezartfox said:


> Keep fluff away from the rules, as it only causes arguments,
> We're talking about a game, there's no point comparing it real life or scale, it's a fictional game with fictional races


Couldn't say it better myself:victory:


----------



## CommanderDuskstorm (Jan 31, 2008)

The rule doesn't bother me all that much, it just means I'll be spending less on sponsons and more on Devastator squads, or Heavy weapon platforms, or Infantry.


----------



## Pirate Metal Troy (Jun 2, 2008)

Agreed. Stop bitching about your tanks, and use the extra points to field something else. I talked to a GW employee today and he seems to think that the tank movement rule might be isn't going to be even close to the rumors. so just wait out the next 35 days without crying. You may yet be able to use your silly guns.


----------



## Son of mortarion (Apr 24, 2008)

Deprived_angels said:


> But if u hav weapons on ur tanks that dont need line of site like basilisk why move when u can hide and shell them to death


a basilisk is NOT a tank, that is a category that gw uses for simplicity. A basilisk is a self-propelled artillery piece. It only makes sense to have it in cover. A M.B.T., or main battle tank, such as the leman russ, should be dynamic, moving as the infantry advance, providing cover fire and heavy weapon support with the weapon systems that it has.


----------



## Son of mortarion (Apr 24, 2008)

the cabbage said:


> The 40K universe is ahead of our time in many ways but in many specific ways technology has degenerated.
> 
> It is only a game remember. *I imagine *40K tanks to more like WW1 tanks in many ways. GW also point out in the rule books that many things such as the fog of war are impossible to get 100% correct and are represented by things like curtailed movement and weapon ranges.
> 
> The whole realism thing is for another thread.


exactly, the overall tech- level of the game is both more advanced(lascannons, plasma guns) and much degraded ("machine spirit"). The game does do a good job of representing the event as realistically as possible. There are some things that cannot be replicated without making the game a matter of accounting and laser pointers. It would make the game less fun.


----------



## Juno (May 3, 2008)

Son of mortarion said:


> There are some things that cannot be replicated without making the game a matter of accounting and laser pointers. It would make the game less fun.


Unfortunately GW have released an official laser pointer :biggrin:

Personally im looking forward to the changes as I think putting more emphasis onto troop choices will help create a more varied style of play with more maneuvering for better position.


----------



## Engelus (Jul 26, 2007)

come on people, this is ridiculous, can't we trust the professional designers a little bit? they've been buried in the system for probably over a year.

Trust me on this because I know, No one understands the system as much as the designers who created it, they have so many numbers and variables in their heads that you could not even begin to see these minor changes from their perspective.

they are not on a mission to make the game worse, its their job and passion to make the game better, game design (just like programming) isn't about Brute force (complicated rules stacked one on top of the other) Its about elegance, doing the most with the smallest amount of rules. there is a lot to to be said about simplifying which is not the same as dumbing down, they are attempting to streamline a complicated system in a way that is above all fair. 

get over it and trust, and before you know it you'll be arguing over all the "crappy" changes they are making in sixth edition.

to stress my point D&D 4th edition just came out and every god dammned rule in that system is a huge amazing improvement over how it used to be, but there are a lot of people who will be like "no I liked 3rd edition" everyone is resistant to change. 

have trust.


----------



## Son of mortarion (Apr 24, 2008)

Engelus said:


> come on people, this is ridiculous, can't we trust the professional designers a little bit? they've been buried in the system for probably over a year.
> 
> Trust me on this because I know, No one understands the system as much as the designers who created it, they have so many numbers and variables in their heads that you could not even begin to see these minor changes from their perspective.
> 
> ...


exactly. The switch to the universal special rules allows the designers to create kewl new units with less of the problems encountered in 3e, where a unit had a rule that countermanded a basic rule of the game, oe another army's special rule. The changes are to make tha game run smoother without losinf the sense of realness.


----------

