Jump to content
hothorbust

A Love Letter to the Tank...

Recommended Posts

I really don't get the love for the Occupier.  It's a "meh" combat unit, and terrible transport.  Loading up the unit into it guarantees your opponent will shoot at it, and damage two units for the price of one.  The massive open sides allow for more damage through, and the low health (compared to the AT-ST) means it'll bite the dust that much sooner.  It's low profile does allow it to gain cover more readily, but it also means that it's LOS is often blocked as well.  Its damage output is decent, but it lacks the extra keywords like "Blast" to help with cover, or the Mortar's range to make the most use out of "suppressive."

Besides its in-game performance, the Occupier is annoying as **** as well.  Its base is super awkward to use, at least when determining firing arcs, because of how much space the model takes up.  Unlike most units, where firing arcs only occasionally play a huge role, the Occupier's come into play almost every time the thing is used, as both sides are worried about them instead of just its owner.  Magnetizing is almost required to help determine the arcs, and woe to those that didn't think about that.

Finally, I get that it was built off an actual armored vehicle, and I love that aspect of it, but man if it wouldn't suck on anything but flat terrain.  that long nose makes me think of this picture from WWI every time I play with it on my trench map, and I'm still trying to figure out how it would handle a slight ditch. 

3258-F6-Saint-Chamond.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Alpha17 said:

I really don't get the love for the Occupier.  It's a "meh" combat unit, and terrible transport.  Loading up the unit into it guarantees your opponent will shoot at it, and damage two units for the price of one.  The massive open sides allow for more damage through, and the low health (compared to the AT-ST) means it'll bite the dust that much sooner.  It's low profile does allow it to gain cover more readily, but it also means that it's LOS is often blocked as well.  Its damage output is decent, but it lacks the extra keywords like "Blast" to help with cover, or the Mortar's range to make the most use out of "suppressive."

Besides its in-game performance, the Occupier is annoying as **** as well.  Its base is super awkward to use, at least when determining firing arcs, because of how much space the model takes up.  Unlike most units, where firing arcs only occasionally play a huge role, the Occupier's come into play almost every time the thing is used, as both sides are worried about them instead of just its owner.  Magnetizing is almost required to help determine the arcs, and woe to those that didn't think about that.

Finally, I get that it was built off an actual armored vehicle, and I love that aspect of it, but man if it wouldn't suck on anything but flat terrain.  that long nose makes me think of this picture from WWI every time I play with it on my trench map, and I'm still trying to figure out how it would handle a slight ditch. 

3258-F6-Saint-Chamond.jpg

 

Do not trouble yourself thinking of the logical issues with fantasy AFV designs. Down that route lies true madness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, MasterShake2 said:

 

Do not trouble yourself thinking of the logical issues with fantasy AFV designs. Down that route lies true madness.

While that's certainly true, you're in a strange place if you make even 40k vehicles look somewhat practical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, GreatMazinkaiser said:

While that's certainly true, you're in a strange place if you make even 40k vehicles look somewhat practical.

 

You say that, but my best guess on the ground pressure of the Leman Russ has it sinking into any terrain softer than asphalt, it's suspension system is nonexistant and if that's seriously supposed to be a 3 man turret with the breach of that cannon, GW can kiss my ***.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MasterShake2 said:

 

You say that, but my best guess on the ground pressure of the Leman Russ has it sinking into any terrain softer than asphalt, it's suspension system is nonexistant and if that's seriously supposed to be a 3 man turret with the breach of that cannon, GW can kiss my ***.

You're not wrong but I was thinking more in terms of firing arcs... the newer Space Marine tanks are better at it but even the venerable Russ has 90 degree arcs on its sponsons, a turret, and a hull-mounted gun about where WWII tanks had them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, GreatMazinkaiser said:

You're not wrong but I was thinking more in terms of firing arcs... the newer Space Marine tanks are better at it but even the venerable Russ has 90 degree arcs on its sponsons, a turret, and a hull-mounted gun about where WWII tanks had them. 

 

Eh, like firing arcs don't even hit my mental radar because, realistically they don't matter all that much.  A single vehicle v a single target, it might come up, but as soon as unit level tactics and especially combined arms get involved, as long as the gun can shoot something who cares.  The Stug series were some of the consistently best performers for the German military and only had a limited traverse.  In specific situations, hull mounted weapons or ones with limited firing arcs did run into problems, but generally when operating as a unit or within another element they could cover each other or other combat arms could cover them.  Also, to be fair, most AFV's are pretty close to blind, so if you're in a spot where the hull mounted weapon can't shoot you, the crew likely can't see you either, so the real impact of that problem vs the general problem of visibility is somewhat limited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/30/2019 at 4:28 PM, GreatMazinkaiser said:

I love it too and it looks cool... Just wish it wasn't one of the dumbest tank designs ever.

i just wish you needed dedicated Anti-tank to knock it out

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not really a fan of the pickup truck design. But love the tank anyway. DLT + the main gun=🔥. Hang back, keep the sides under cover and blast stuff. Forget about transporting; keep the crates on and it totally obscures units. Good times. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎6‎/‎1‎/‎2019 at 7:25 AM, Darth evil said:

i just wish you needed dedicated Anti-tank to knock it out

I don't like the idea of the need for a dedicated anti-armor weapon. adds complexity and will be a waste in most lists. These guys have lasers, how would that be ineffective against armor? Leave the rules as is...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bohemian73 said:

I don't like the idea of the need for a dedicated anti-armor weapon. adds complexity and will be a waste in most lists. These guys have lasers, how would that be ineffective against armor? Leave the rules as is...

 

I agree with Darth Evil, I think that one of the reasons that armor is so underwhelming is the shear number of things that can hurt it.  There also wouldn't need to have to add dedicated anti-armor weapons because they already exist.  Every corps has an anti-armor heavy weapon.  Impact Grenades also work as well as lightsabers.  In fact almost every unit in the game comes with at least an option for anti-armor attacks with the exception being commanders/operatives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed... It's reasonable to expect every list to have a bit of armor in it (obviously not at the moment)... No one's saying you have to have Devastators, but a few Tac squads with missile launchers should be essential to a well-rounded army.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We see stormtroopers taking out an X-Wing with their blasters at the beginning of TFA, so I don't think it's a stretch to imagine enough firepower finding the weak points on an AT-ST, for instance. 

Would a 'Bluetooth' upgrade that allows vehicles to interact with scoring objectives help us see more Armour in gameplay? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, FearofaBlankPlanet said:

We see stormtroopers taking out an X-Wing with their blasters at the beginning of TFA, so I don't think it's a stretch to imagine enough firepower finding the weak points on an AT-ST, for instance. 

Would a 'Bluetooth' upgrade that allows vehicles to interact with scoring objectives help us see more Armour in gameplay? 

The ATST already has a rule for that with the weakness: Rear keyword.  The other thing is that the storm troopers only disable it with their regular blasters, they have to bring in a heavy weapon to destroy it.  I would also imagine that an ATST is more armored than an x-wing because an x-wing has shields to protect it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/3/2019 at 10:04 PM, FearofaBlankPlanet said:

We see stormtroopers taking out an X-Wing with their blasters at the beginning of TFA, so I don't think it's a stretch to imagine enough firepower finding the weak points on an AT-ST, for instance. 

Would a 'Bluetooth' upgrade that allows vehicles to interact with scoring objectives help us see more Armour in gameplay? 

Aircraft are quite fragile generally speaking. A few shots from any infantry rifle could completely ruin an F-35 and make it unable to fly.

Ground vehicles on the other hand should be quite safe from small arms.

 

Perhaps if Armor was worded as follows instead of what it currently is,

Armor X: When defending, you may cancel all Hit results. When defending, you may cancel up to X Crit results except Crit results generated by the Impact keyword.

So armor would have an order of magnitude now that would give it some resilience vs lucky crits getting through. So say an AT-RT had Armor 1, it could discard 1 lucky crit, but 2 would get a wound through. An AT-ST might have Armor 2, so just trying to roll lucky crits would be an unlikely event, you would need Impact of some level to get through.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, BadMotivator said:

Armor X: When defending, you may cancel all Hit results. When defending, you may cancel up to X Crit results except Crit results generated by the Impact keyword.

So armor would have an order of magnitude now that would give it some resilience vs lucky crits getting through. So say an AT-RT had Armor 1, it could discard 1 lucky crit, but 2 would get a wound through. An AT-ST might have Armor 2, so just trying to roll lucky crits would be an unlikely event, you would need Impact of some level to get through.

Now that 'Armor X' is its own thing (see the X-34 and the Dewback) the extra effect you want to give armour should be its own keyword. 

It would probably be something like Resilience X: Reduce X crit results to hits before Impact is applied.

Although I'm still not sure if it's something vehicles really need. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...