# GW Main Page "Rock Hard Tanks"



## Arcane (Feb 17, 2009)

ROCK HARD TANKS


> "Rock Hard Tanks
> In Warhammer 40,000, *tanks are more resilient than ever before*. They can also fire more of their weapons more of the time - and if shooting doesn't kill your foes, then you can drive into - and through - densely packed enemy units. Browse through our selection of Rock Hard Tanks - don't forget, you can add allied tanks to your army."


So this is on the title of the GW web page right now. What are the team over at GW smoking? Do they not realized that tanks are easier to destroy now with Hull Points added to the game and cover saves reduced? Or am I missing something here... I know it's easier to get a cover save, but obscured vehicles only get a 5+? Not to mention you can no longer assault from most vehicles, so many players have been talking about completely shelving or minimizing their tanks in their lists. 


Does anyone else get the feeling that the GW dev team seems to keep getting more out of touch with the realities of game play and mechanics outside their play in the GW studio?

Also the choice of including some tanks and not others is odd. No SM Rhino, No SoB Vehicles?


----------



## lokis222 (Mar 14, 2009)

that would be the marketing division who have been smoking me thinks.


----------



## pantat (May 15, 2011)

Its just a way to sell tanks i guess. "buy these expensive tanks that are now much easier to destroy" is hardly a selling headline no?

On a side note, i've completely ditched all vehicles and have had a 100% infantry army from my 2nd game onwards and have won every game. Watching my dev squads rip through tanks is quite enjoyable actually


----------



## humakt (Jan 2, 2008)

I think hull points make tanks useful for longer as they can fire when glanced. Hull points just mean you can only get glanced/penetrated so many times before becoming a wreck. 

Its fair that once you have the right fire power in the right place lighter tanks are in trouble. But AP 13 and 14 vehicles are still tough, with Landraiders and monoliths being as hard as ever with 4 hull points and 14 all round armour they are resiliant to most attacks (except melta. lance and heavy ordenance).

I have been finding that close combat is actually the best way to blow up vehicles.


----------



## Iron Angel (Aug 2, 2009)

Fortunately the game stays largely unchanged for my vehicles, for better or for worse. I still need ghost arks for their almighty replenishing powers. Surprisingly, I have found the changes to glancing make my vehicles more durable, especially on said ghost arks when I roll an unlucky 1. Before, I had to sweat, because if I rolled a 5, the transport wrecked, and if I rolled a four, it was immobilized, making it useless. My Annihilation barges feel the same way against stuff that can't torrent S7+ and instead just have to pluck at it.

Of course almost all my vehicles are AV13/14, and the ones that aren't are flyers.


----------



## Septok (Jan 21, 2012)

Arcane said:


> So this is on the title of the GW web page right now. What are the team over at GW smoking?


I'd say they're probably on weed, taking lsd, that kind of thing. It would be a funny conversation in the building though. "Is that smoke coming from the marketing team's room?" "The got the weed out again, haven't they?"

Anyway, let's stop waxing lyrical about drugs and get to business: GW are going crazy. But I can see where they're coming from, an unmodified penning hit now needs a 6 to 1-shot vehicles and glances now only strip HP. But conversely, nothing can survive 3 or 4 glances/pens unlike before. And little vehicles can only take 2 such hits before they go down.


----------



## VanquisherMBT (Apr 18, 2012)

Does it really matter?

GW's site makes loads of statements like this, nobody cares.


----------



## Sethis (Jun 4, 2009)

Arcane said:


> So this is on the title of the GW web page right now. What are the team over at GW smoking? Do they not realized that tanks are easier to destroy now with Hull Points added to the game and cover saves reduced? Or am I missing something here... I know it's easier to get a cover save, but obscured vehicles only get a 5+? Not to mention you can no longer assault from most vehicles, so many players have been talking about completely shelving or minimizing their tanks in their lists.
> 
> Does anyone else get the feeling that the GW dev team seems to keep getting more out of touch with the realities of game play and mechanics outside their play in the GW studio?


It's nothing to do with the game itself. It's just something they felt like pushing this month, with no relevance to anything else. The sales people will have said "Let's drive sales of £40+ tanks by 5% this month" with no input from anyone else, let alone the design studio.



Arcane said:


> Also the choice of including some tanks and not others is odd. No SM Rhino, No SoB Vehicles?


How many AV13-14 Vehicles do Sisters have? 1. Is a Rhino considered "rock hard"? No, not really. That might explain why they're not there and the Land Raider is. Just a thought.


----------



## HOBO (Dec 7, 2007)

humakt said:


> I think hull points make tanks useful for longer as they can fire when glanced. Hull points just mean you can only get glanced/penetrated so many times before becoming a wreck.
> 
> Its fair that once you have the right fire power in the right place lighter tanks are in trouble. But AP 13 and 14 vehicles are still tough, with Landraiders and monoliths being as hard as ever with 4 hull points and 14 all round armour they are resiliant to most attacks (except melta. lance and heavy ordenance).
> 
> I have been finding that close combat is actually the best way to blow up vehicles.


This pretty much:goodpost:

Transports you need to spam more than ever so some survive long enough to get where you want them, but other than that 6th ed has made tanks more shooty and mobile, but less survivable.

I can live with that.


----------



## Moriouce (Oct 20, 2009)

I believe the changes have made light vehicles (AV10-12) less durable and heavy vehicles (AV13-14) more durable. Those that are displayed at the GW website are all AV12-14 so in the abcense of AV12 they would be right.


----------



## Iron Angel (Aug 2, 2009)

Heavier vehicles had to worry a lot about being glanced because the high-strength weaponry doesn't exist in the abundance required to reliably penetrate. A S8 AP1 weapon could actually wreck an AV14 vehicle with one shot, given some lucky rolls. Glances are still dangerous but in a different way. Where before, the enemy needed more glances (Lets see a show of hands, who here wrecked a monolith/land raider with 4 glances? No one?) each glance was individually much more dangerous as it could immobilize the vehicle, blow a weapon off, or stop the vehicle from shooting or moving for a turn. Stunlocking a heavy vehicle was one of the best ways to make it less effective, now thats much more difficult.


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

Moriouce said:


> I believe the changes have made light vehicles (AV10-12) less durable and heavy vehicles (AV13-14) more durable. Those that are displayed at the GW website are all AV12-14 so in the abcense of AV12 they would be right.


which is really how it should be, an apc is a mode of transport and its the contents that should be important in game terms, where as a tank is a mobile heavy weapon platform and should be able to soak up more damage before it wrecks. 

But all in all its just some words designed to shift some tank models, its no different than saying"death from above" for flyers or any other slogan used to shift models, you either buy into it or you dont, marketing isnt about telling the truth its about skewing it or putting a spin on things to make someone think they need what your selling and part with the cash. There is a whole science to manipulating customers in retail and sales and its quite interesting to see it in action, its one of those silly things that you dont know is happening to you until someone explains to you how and why it works.


----------



## Haskanael (Jul 5, 2011)

I;ve not see nthat statement anywhere O-o


----------



## Rems (Jun 20, 2011)

In the short term tanks have become more resistant and reliable. It's over the course of the game that they've become more fragile. 

There's now far less chance of a single shot taking out your tank; glances don't roll on the damage table and one needs to get through all the hull points. On average it will consistently take a dedicated amount of shooting to remove or neutralise's a vehicle. 

Stun-locking is far less viable now, with glances no longer rolling on the table and negating your ability to shoot. Your tanks shooting will be more reliable and effective. 

Long term however they are more susceptible to damage; it being a matter of chipping hull points off. This is as it should be.


----------



## Arcane (Feb 17, 2009)

I know it's just marketing, but itms bad marketing. But hey, I could be wrong, it's not like the majoriity of GW stores have closed or anything...


----------



## ARMYguy (Feb 8, 2012)

Arcane said:


> I know it's easier to get a cover save, but obscured vehicles only get a 5+?


A small quibble but its 4 + for 25 % obscured and then a 3 + if you manage to hide 75 % or so. At least thats how it looks from the pictures on the vehicle cover page, which i don't remember the page number.


----------



## asianavatar (Aug 20, 2007)

The new rules have made shooty tanks better for the most part. Two glances still mean two turns of shooting with my exorcist instead of just sitting there so it can be shot at again. I found in most of the games I played in 5th, my Exorcists were dead by turn 5 and if it got glanced a few times I lost one to two turns of shooting. In the new edition I find that my tanks die at around the same rate, but I get the extra turns of shooting in. So I am happy with how that worked out, transports on the other hand, those are taking a beating.


----------



## Haskanael (Jul 5, 2011)

asianavatar said:


> The new rules have made shooty tanks better for the most part. Two glances still mean two turns of shooting with my exorcist instead of just sitting there so it can be shot at again. I found in most of the games I played in 5th. My Exorcists were dead by turn 5 and if it got glanced a few times I lost one to two turns of shooting. In the new edition I find that my tanks die at around the same rate, but I get the extra turns of shooting in. So I am happy with how that worked out, transports on the other hand, those are taking a beating.


I Agree with that you're high priory vehicle units have a bigger chance to get a couple of turns of shooting instead of being glanced and stunnd/whatever after the enemies first shooting phase


----------



## Arcane (Feb 17, 2009)

ARMYguy said:


> A small quibble but its 4 + for 25 % obscured and then a 3 + if you manage to hide 75 % or so. At least thats how it looks from the pictures on the vehicle cover page, which i don't remember the page number.


I was thinking smoke but haven't been with the new rules -that- long.

Was hoping to at least see an Excorcist on the list of "tanks".


----------



## darklove (May 7, 2008)

Has anyone reported GW to trading standards yet? False advertising is an offence, and they could be forced to correct the text and make an apology...


----------



## scscofield (May 23, 2011)

Eh? How is this something reportable? Nothing they posted in that writeup is false or misleading. Just because the internet is a bitchy little set of whiners does not mean they are right.


----------



## The Gunslinger (Apr 4, 2011)

thinking about it, i know its a game but in real life if you shot a tank with two or three missiles you would expect it to blow up, just because its a tank dosnt make it invincible


----------



## ohiocat110 (Sep 15, 2010)

They're right in that tanks are more likely to be operational later into games. It's now very difficult to one shot vehicles with anything other than a melta (same for AP2), and you need a penetrating hit to do any damage at all unless you wipe out all the hull points. 

There's also a lot more pressure on builds to take plasma to counter AP2, and flamers for Overwatch. Then there's flyers and flyer defense. All of which means less room for the standard max mech and melta of 5th. Just building to kill tanks is going to hurt you in other areas.


----------



## pantat (May 15, 2011)

ARMYguy said:


> A small quibble but its 4 + for 25 % obscured and then a 3 + if you manage to hide 75 % or so. At least thats how it looks from the pictures on the vehicle cover page, which i don't remember the page number.


Dependa what you are being obscured by of course, not everything is 4+ now. Also the extra cover save was if u can some part of the tank but NOTHING of the facing you are in, which was what the pic described.


----------



## Jace of Ultramar (Aug 2, 2011)

The Gunslinger said:


> thinking about it, i know its a game but in real life if you shot a tank with two or three missiles you would expect it to blow up, just because its a tank dosnt make it invincible


Well, it is a game but considering the time assembling/painting, money spent, and list writing to include it you certainly want to see it survive for at least a while.


And, in my book, tanks are always invincible... except when they're not! :shok:


----------



## The Gunslinger (Apr 4, 2011)

Jace of Ultramar said:


> Well, it is a game but considering the time assembling/painting, money spent, and list writing to include it you certainly want to see it survive for at least a while.
> 
> 
> And, in my book, tanks are always invincible... except when they're not! :shok:


yea but that could be said for everything, infact i bet it took alot more effort to make and paint a platoon of imperial guard but they wont stay around for very long


----------



## Arcane (Feb 17, 2009)

scscofield said:


> the internet is a bitchy little set of whiners does not mean they are right.


This coming from the guy who said he was going to tear apart all his rhinos because the suck now and make them into terrain pieces. :laugh:


----------



## Jace of Ultramar (Aug 2, 2011)

The Gunslinger said:


> yea but that could be said for everything, infact i bet it took alot more effort to make and paint a platoon of imperial guard but they wont stay around for very long


I'm not going to argue that too much. But, in my own experience once I've painted a few troops I get a method going for 'how to paint them' and its way easier for me to knock out a squad/platoon in no time. In fact, I was actually painting two minis a day of my marines at work when all I did was bolter toting troops. I imagine most people paint between 2 to 6 large tanks and those may take a while longer in consideration of construction, priming, base coating, and finally detailing.


----------



## The Gunslinger (Apr 4, 2011)

Jace of Ultramar said:


> I'm not going to argue that too much. But, in my own experience once I've painted w few troops I get a method going for 'how to paint them' and its waist for me to knock out a squad/platoon in no time. In fact, I was actually painting two minis a day of my marines at work when all I did was bolter toting troops. I imagine most people paint between 2 to 6 large tanks and those may take a while longer in consideration of construction, priming, base coating, and finally detailing.


yea i didnt mean to argue for the sake or arguing, i was just saying its a warzone, everything is vulnerable in some sense, even tanks. and i do agree you put more effort and thought into a centre piece like a large tank or a character.


----------



## Jace of Ultramar (Aug 2, 2011)

Arcane said:


> This coming from the guy who said he was going to tear apart all his rhinos because the suck now and make them into terrain pieces. :laugh:


That's actually not a bad idea if your just tossing them.


----------



## scscofield (May 23, 2011)

Rhinos are not tanks, and I never liked transports to begin with. More likely I will paint them some other color than what my SW is, toss predator guns on top of them and treat them as......





wait for it..........








'Rock Hard Tanks'

Edit: Forgot to add this:


----------



## Arcane (Feb 17, 2009)

Actually Rhinos *are* tanks, son. Check the rule book. ^_~


----------



## scscofield (May 23, 2011)

Aye they are tanks, like a Geo Metro is a car. Either way, attempting to report GW for false advertising ect ect, is asinine horseshit.

And they are not 'Rock Hard Tanks' I want little blue pill enhanced tanks thank you very much.


----------



## DeathKlokk (Jun 9, 2008)

I believe Darklove was employing that new craze going around "sarcasm". I have yet to get the hang of it myself...

Since when are we surprised at preposterous crap GW says to sell models? 
It always makes me think of the line i nthe CSM codex where it says Havocs like to employ Rhino transports to get them to where the fighting is thickest. Ever seen anyone buy a Rhino for Havocs?


----------



## Jace of Ultramar (Aug 2, 2011)

scscofield said:


> Aye they are tanks, like a Geo Metro is a car. Either way, attempting to report GW for false advertising ect ect, is asinine horseshit.
> 
> And they are not 'Rock Hard Tanks' I want little blue pill enhanced tanks thank you very much.


This entire post is hilarious!

By the way, any little blue pill enhanced tanks should have a Pfizer chapter logo on them.


----------



## scscofield (May 23, 2011)

The chapter that has to see the Apothecary if their missions last longer than 4 hrs.


----------



## Jace of Ultramar (Aug 2, 2011)

:rofl:HA!!!


----------



## BozlyLittle (Jul 3, 2011)

I'm pretty sure I saw a land raider get glanced to death by some necron warriors so ya i agree with you op.


----------



## Iron Angel (Aug 2, 2009)

To be fair Warriors glance anything to death.


----------



## humakt (Jan 2, 2008)

Iron Angel said:


> To be fair Warriors glance anything to death.


That does have to be the one unit that will kill any tank regradless of AV. Having a load of warriros is now going to toast mech armies. Even with jink on skimmers, you cannot survive that many glancing hits. 

I think that Necrons are going to be the army that can beat razorspam the easiest.


----------



## scscofield (May 23, 2011)

Razorspam is going to get scarce I think. As too a LR being glanced to death, it happens, the new system did not make LRs any weaker than they were before.


----------



## Arcane (Feb 17, 2009)

Waiting for that little blue pill for my army as well. Wonder why the Excorcist wasn't included with the other tanks. New model soon?


----------



## kaboot (Jan 4, 2012)

Its such a lie!!!! I threw a big rock at my tank to test this theory out....

....Good news is, I have a new tank to build! :grin:


----------



## mahavira (Jan 10, 2010)

Arcane said:


> Waiting for that little blue pill for my army as well. Wonder why the Excorcist wasn't included with the other tanks. New model soon?


Might be because it's half metal.


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

mahavira said:


> Might be because it's half metal.


That's actually a rather reasonable theory. I concur, it's the most likely one too. I'm willing to bet that GW knows that in this age of plastic that metal/plastic kits don't sell all that well.


----------



## scscofield (May 23, 2011)

As I said in the SoB thread the most likely reason is because you guys do not have a actual printed codex. Kinda hard to push models when you can not get the rules for said model.


----------



## Arcane (Feb 17, 2009)

But doesn't that make it more "rock hard" than other tanks? lulz.


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

Ok i hate to be the one to do this but its not listed as a rock hard tank because........ its a set of pan pipes on the back of a rhino.


----------



## Arcane (Feb 17, 2009)

bitsandkits said:


> Ok i hate to be the one to do this but its not listed as a rock hard tank because........ its a set of pan pipes on the back of a rhino.


And a Doomsday Ark is a floating Centipede with a massive erection, what's your point? :laugh:


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

Arcane said:


> And a Doomsday Ark is a floating Centipede with a massive erection, what's your point? :laugh:


a massive erection is the reason its a tank, pan pipes = girly let talk about feelings and team edward, massive erection = tank man tools


----------



## Veteran Sergeant (May 17, 2012)

Transports are less durable. The actual _tanks_ (Leman Russ, Land Raider, etc) are much better. Less likely to be shaken or stunned, more firepower.


----------

