Tau Empire Codex 2013 | Army Builder Program
Dark Angels Codex 2013
Chaos Daemons Codex 2013
Chaos Space Marines Codex 2012

Warhammer 40k Forum Tau Online

 

Warhammer 40K Forum

A thought on Guard tank armament. Let's hear what the experts think on it
Reply
Old 23 Nov 2007, 16:27   #1 (permalink)
Shas'O
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Brampton Ont. Canada
Posts: 6,441
Default A thought on Guard tank armament. Let's hear what the experts think on it

Ok, I'm not exactly an expert on the topic, but I figured I'd post it up here to see what the guard folks have to say about it. It's quite possible that this has been brought up before, but I have a lil project in the works that may benefit from these thoughts going through my head

"Switch Hitter" tanks. This applies mostly to armoured companies/battlegroups, but could apply to a tank heavy army as well. Due to the rules for firing ordnance it is, of course, impossible to fire any other weapons on the turn the main gun is fired. This means that, unlike a marine predator, a guard tank doesn't seem to have the same issue with having multiple main weapons. With this in mind I had an idea.

What if across a formation of tanks, the tanks were done up as "Switch Hitters"? What the zog do I mean? Basically, the tanks with a tank busting main gun (Vanquisher) could be equipped with heavy bolter secondary armaments while the standard Russes could take a lascannon hull mount, likely without sponsons. What's the point here? Any tank in the force can do any thing. On one turn they could all switch to tank busting mode and devastate enemy armour. The next they could ready their troop-shredding weapons and go to town on the poor infantry. This would mean that it would be nearly impossible to rob an armoured column of it's capability to knock out armour/infantry with the usual effectiveness without actually destroying every single tank! And thanks to the rules for firing ordnance, the tanks don't really lose that much of their firepower. Of course the battle cannon is already decent at both, but due to the 4th edition rule with template weapons against vehicles, I think most ordnance weapons have been given a bit more of an anti-infantry slant.

Of course, if you're using those Imperial Armour ammo rules, this probably all goes out the window since your tanks have AT and HE shell options
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mitch: the noob
Is it just me, or does Fish Ead really love to use a Dreadsock?...
I'd hate to get on his bad side... >
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiwaz
Fishy has just proved to me that Canadians CAN be scary...
Fish Ead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23 Nov 2007, 17:23   #2 (permalink)
Shas'O
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Hertford, UK
Posts: 5,086
Default Re: A thought on Guard tank armament. Let's hear what the experts think on it

That's a perfectly acceptable option. Some people prefer to have certain tanks dedicated to specific roles and so arm them with AT hull and sponson weapon in case the main weapon gets destroyed, but I favour the versatility of the sort of tanks you're talking about. In the case of Annihilators, Conquerers (what's the point?!) and Exterminators though, it is best to take sponsons and hull weapon that compliment's the turret weapon's role.

In regards to Imperial Armour ammo rules though, I'm pretty sure the same principle applies; they're still battlecannons no matter what ammunition nature you're firing.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colonel_Sanders
When all was finished, the battlefield was a smoking crater. UDC, Valoran, US Army, Tau, the Nazis, a random pirate ship, and a bunch of ninjas, all were enemies to the Vulture. All were turned into scrap metal. Or plastic. Depends which game system you play.
Tom Norman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23 Nov 2007, 17:43   #3 (permalink)
Shas'O
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Brampton Ont. Canada
Posts: 6,441
Default Re: A thought on Guard tank armament. Let's hear what the experts think on it

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Norman
That's a perfectly acceptable option. Some people prefer to have certain tanks dedicated to specific roles and so arm them with AT hull and sponson weapon in case the main weapon gets destroyed, but I favour the versatility of the sort of tanks you're talking about. In the case of Annihilators, Conquerers (what's the point?!) and Exterminators though, it is best to take sponsons and hull weapon that compliment's the turret weapon's role.

In regards to Imperial Armour ammo rules though, I'm pretty sure the same principle applies; they're still battlecannons no matter what ammunition nature you're firing.
I agree about the annihilators and such. They're kinda like giant Predator tanks. Hell I've always pictured the fabled "missing link" between the Pred and the Land Raider as being something like an Exterminator

On the ammo rules, I figured that they give the main gun a lil more versatility in that your main gun can be fired on BS rather than relying on scatter. So I reckon the secondary guns become more of backup weapons since the battle cannon is better able to engage any target under those rules. Still, a good mix of backup weapons is probably good to have
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mitch: the noob
Is it just me, or does Fish Ead really love to use a Dreadsock?...
I'd hate to get on his bad side... >
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiwaz
Fishy has just proved to me that Canadians CAN be scary...
Fish Ead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23 Nov 2007, 19:33   #4 (permalink)
Ethereal
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: On the Midnight Ocean
Posts: 26,404
Send a message via MSN to Wargamer
Default Re: A thought on Guard tank armament. Let's hear what the experts think on it

This tactic sounds like a variation on my standard Hammer and Anvil tactic.

The Hammer and Anvil is typically done with two Leman Russ Battletanks, both equipped with Las/Bolters.

One tank remains stationary, and uses the Battlecannon. The other advances, and uses Las/Bolters. The tanks then switch roles, thus creating a moving firebase whilst still laying down heavy fire.
__________________
Farewell, Kangaroo Joe, you shall not be forgotten.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Norman
"Wargamer is never wrong, Frodo Baggins; he knows precisely the rules he means to."
Wargamer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24 Nov 2007, 00:14   #5 (permalink)
Shas'O
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Hertford, UK
Posts: 5,086
Default Re: A thought on Guard tank armament. Let's hear what the experts think on it

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wargamer
This tactic sounds like a variation on my standard Hammer and Anvil tactic.

The Hammer and Anvil is typically done with two Leman Russ Battletanks, both equipped with Las/Bolters.

One tank remains stationary, and uses the Battlecannon. The other advances, and uses Las/Bolters. The tanks then switch roles, thus creating a moving firebase whilst still laying down heavy fire.
I don't get it. In a military context, doesn't 'hammer and anvil' typically refer to a strategy of trapping the enemy against a static or ponderous force with a mechanised battlegroup or some such? How does this relate? ???

Unless I'm overlooking something critical, I don't see how this can be a useful tactic. Faced with marines, you're always better off pie-plating them whether you move or not. Faced with aspect warriors and the like, you're better off hosing them down with heavy bolter fire and throwing in a lascannon shot if that's what you've got for a hull weapon. Sounds to me suspiciously like another real world parallel that has no place on the tabletop. :shifty:
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colonel_Sanders
When all was finished, the battlefield was a smoking crater. UDC, Valoran, US Army, Tau, the Nazis, a random pirate ship, and a bunch of ninjas, all were enemies to the Vulture. All were turned into scrap metal. Or plastic. Depends which game system you play.
Tom Norman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24 Nov 2007, 00:35   #6 (permalink)
Shas'Vre
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Niagara Falls
Posts: 1,513
Send a message via MSN to Hoarday
Default Re: A thought on Guard tank armament. Let's hear what the experts think on it

Well I suppose you'd get a mildly more accurate shot with the battlecannon if it's stationary...I'd be more concerned about the efficiency of firing 2 battlecannons at one unit. I can't think of a whole lot of targets that warrant the attention of 2/3 of my heavy support section.
__________________
We Will Hold The Line With Blood and Bullets
Hoarday is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24 Nov 2007, 13:39   #7 (permalink)
Shas'O
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 5,246
Default Re: A thought on Guard tank armament. Let's hear what the experts think on it

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoarday
Well I suppose you'd get a mildly more accurate shot with the battlecannon if it's stationary...I'd be more concerned about the efficiency of firing 2 battlecannons at one unit. I can't think of a whole lot of targets that warrant the attention of 2/3 of my heavy support section.
That's what I've noticed too. After one battlecannon shot, it's really not worth hitting it again if the models are so few in numbers.

Why waste a pie plate on a unit of three, if there's a unit of 10 nearby?

Fish Ead - another benefit of your tactic is the wall of AV 14. Always good to have on your side.
__________________
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, therefore, is not an act, but a habit.
-Will Durant
Aftercresent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24 Nov 2007, 14:23   #8 (permalink)
Shas'O
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 9,460
Default Re: A thought on Guard tank armament. Let's hear what the experts think on it

I have to agree... unless you miss the unit completely or it has 2+ armour (in which case you should save it for your plasma and demolishers) then it only needs 1 shell.
GeekyGator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24 Nov 2007, 14:47   #9 (permalink)
Shas'O
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Hertford, UK
Posts: 5,086
Default Re: A thought on Guard tank armament. Let's hear what the experts think on it

No one actually said anything about firing both battlecannons at the same unit, but whatever. Personally, I'd be only too happy to do so because I prefer to focus on one unit at a time and kill it until it is dead (or useless). Hitting a full marine squad with a pie plate will likely kill three of them; there's plenty more in there to make a second shot worthwhile.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colonel_Sanders
When all was finished, the battlefield was a smoking crater. UDC, Valoran, US Army, Tau, the Nazis, a random pirate ship, and a bunch of ninjas, all were enemies to the Vulture. All were turned into scrap metal. Or plastic. Depends which game system you play.
Tom Norman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24 Nov 2007, 14:58   #10 (permalink)
Shas'Vre
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Niagara Falls
Posts: 1,513
Send a message via MSN to Hoarday
Default Re: A thought on Guard tank armament. Let's hear what the experts think on it

Yea, I realized that this morning...My point still stands though. The second russ would typically be better used on a different target. And tom, I don't know you figure a pieplate will only ever average 3 kills against an MEQ. The only way that would work is if your opponent lined up every member of the squad in one straight line, with exactly 2" between each model. I tend to find that anytime you average out blast templates you assume that the enemy squad is always going to be in the most optimal formation to get hit by said template (ie as spread out as rules allow). Personally, I find that this is almost never the case, and a 10 man space marine squad hit by one of my battlecannons is typically getting splattered into oblivion, with barely a handful of models left.
__________________
We Will Hold The Line With Blood and Bullets
Hoarday is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
what is this "command tank"i hear of? malay melee Tau 12 28 Aug 2007 15:03
IST Armament Morgue The Inquisition 4 02 Jul 2006 05:41
WW1 style guard tank! snipin_joe Conversion 6 13 Mar 2006 18:11
I have problems aginst Imerial Guard and would like to hear some suggestions? chicop76 Tau 15 04 Mar 2006 11:14
Experts Needed Neshrak The Inquisition 17 29 Nov 2005 14:41