A response to "Vehicles in 40k - For Better or Worse?"

[Vaktathi]

I felt it best to make a thread here on the subject, as currently the comments on the front page aren't working again and this would be a wee bit lengthy regardless.



Vehicles have changed a fair bit in 6th ed. They move and shoot differently and damage is dealt in a different way. Also, do not forget the addition of flyers and chariots. Speaking of flyers and chariots, I'll talk about them another day. Walkers haven't changed much to warrant their own post, but one can be found here about walkers in assault: death of the close combat Dreadnought?

I've got more points than yao

Hull points is a big change to vehicles in this edition. I haven't decided if this makes vehicles weaker or stronger yet, or just a total different way of doing things. Unequivocally weaker. In every sense vehicles are easier than ever to destroy. AV10/11/12 vehicles typically will require half or less the average number of shots to destroy that they did previously. This is huge, it's about the same difference as Bolters vs T4 3+ and T3 4+.

In 5E, a BS3 autocannon needed an average of 36 shots to kill an AV12 vehicle, now between Hull Points and a still existant chance to kill outright, you need an average of 14.4 shots. Under 4E when people universally decried how quickly non-skimmer vehicles died, you needed an average of 18 shots.

Vehicles are easier to kill with lower average lifespan's than they ever have been in 40k, at least since the 3E reboot if not 2nd edition.

Essentially what HP's have done is turn vehicles into T6-10 2-4W models with no save (usually at best a 5+ cover) that suffer Instant Death or some other debilitating result on any to-wound roll that exceeds the minimum required to wound them, with most being reduced to T6 in CC even otherwise higher with WS0 or WS1 at best and no attacks.






Lets take the humble Rhino. The Rhino has three hull points. To wreck the Rhino via glancing hits you would have to score weapon destroyed, immobilised and either one of those results again. So from a glancing destruction point of view, the Rhino has 'three wounds' before it snuffs it. In 6th ed the Rhino has three hull points before it snuffs it. Overall the Rhino hasn't been effected by death by glancing. Yes it very much has, you're math is wrong here. In 5E you'd need an average of 9 glances to kill it. You're not factoring in that the weapon destroyed/immobilized was a 1/3 chance that needed to be inflicted 3 times and treating it just like simply glancing 3 times.



The next popular vehicle I am going to look at is the Chimera. To wreck a Chimera in 5th edition you would have to score weapon destroyed twice, immobilised and then either of those results again in order to wreck it - that's 'four wounds' so to speak of, from a glancing perspective. In 6th ed the Chimera has three hull points, so now is weaker, as only three glancing hits are needed to total it. By a significant margin, it went from needing an average of 12 glancing hits to needing 3, a 75% decrease in survivability by that measure.



Now time to look at some xeno vehicles; Dark Eldar Venom and Necron Ghost Ark.

In 5th edition a lucky glance could take down the Venom, just roll a 6+ on the damage chart when you scored a glancing hit and the Venom would be wrecked. Now the Venom got more survivable, it takes two glancing hits to take down the Venom. So no lucky glancing hits to blow it to bits! Only if you're looking at single hits. No *single* glance is going to kill a Venom or Ghost ark.

However, where a Venom required an average of 81 bolter shots to bring down in 5E (81 x 2/3=54/6=9 glances x2/3 flickerfield saves=6 unsaved=1 average wrecked result), it now only requires 27 bolter shots due to simply needing to be glanced twice.

This is something missed quite often, and completely inexplicably. Venoms required only 1/3rd the average bolter fire directed their way to take down in 6E. In *NO* way can they be considered more survivable except purely when looking at the chance to be killed by the first glancing hit.

Ghost arks for some inexplicable reason were gifted with an extra HP over many other vehicles like Predators, Leman Russ tanks, etc, but even then aren't as survivable as they were for the same reasons as above, they simply take far less shots on average to take down.


I guess also it makes vehicle less survivable on the other hand, as they are not going to keep being shaken/stunned, and will be wrecked at some point. Everyone profits! Not really, the tanks lost *way* hard.




Ba-boom!

At a first glance you would think that the damage table has got worse for vehicles. Really, it hasn't...

See in 5th a melta shot would total a vehicle on a 4+. In 6th a melta shot will total a vehicle too.

Same with the AP2 weapons as well. On a 5+ in 5th ed a plasma gun would take out a vehicle; in 6th ed it is the same as well.

Also applies to open topped vehicles; 5+ in 5th ed and it was smoked, same happens in 6th.

The only change is non AP2 and AP2 weapons. In 5th, say a Eldar scatter laser fired at a Rhino and rolled a 5+ on the damage chart, it would be then wrecked, though now in 6th it would only be immobilised. But, scatter lasers tend to glance things more than penetrate, so will probably wreck a Rhino with glancing hits anyway. Indeed, not much has changed, for many weapons the chance to inflict a killing blow through the damage chart has been decreased, but they will likely kill the vehicle through HP infliction long before they'd kill it on the damage chart either way, so the vehicles are still much less survivable than they were, just less likely to be killed on any 1 particular shot than they were provided it's the first or second HP.




Dakka dakka on the move

A nice profit change for vehicles is how they shoot on the move.

Previously, if a vehicle moved at combat speed (up to 6"), then it could only fire a single weapon (unless a fast vehicle). This was a bit lame as I am pretty sure vehicles can move and still shoot in the real world. Also it was mega despressing if you had a vehicle with more than one weapon. To add salt to the wound, if you move 12" you couldn't fire at all!

Now vehicles can move up to 6" and fire one weapon normally and snap fire any other weapons. Ok, this isn't awesome, but it's better than not firing anything at all. It is very cool if you have twin-linked weapons and even better if you play Necrons and have tesla ;) . There's more goodness as well; you can move 12" and snap fire all weapons if you like, again it's not awesome, but better than a kick in the pants.
This is about the only area vehicles truly gained in. That said, it's not an earth-shaking change, it's just as you said, better than a kick in the pants.



Zooooom!

Not only did vehicles get better at shooting, but they got better at moving as well. Instead of shooting, they can move up to 6" in the shooting phase (fast vehicles move further and no tank shocks either!). In total this gives a vehicle a 18" movement, this is extremely useful, as all but one of 40k's games are objectives. The problem here is that the utility of that movement has decreased dramatically for two reasons, not the least being the fact that vehicles cannot hold or contest objectives at all even with embarked troops aside from one mission if they're from your Heavy Support slot. The other is the massive CC to-hit nerf which I'll address in a bit here.




Cover me!

Vehicles just got cover saves a whole lot easier. 5th ed you needed 50% of the vehicle covered, which sometimes was tough. 6th you need 25%, which is much easier to do. Keep in mind that cover saves are granted from the type of cover i.e trees, ruins or fortifications. It's so easy to tell what is 25% covered on a model, makes things massively easier. Yes, however the average cover save has decreased as well from 4+ to 5+, and 50% obscured wasn't particularly difficult in 5E (it was in fact one of the primary gripes, that everything always had a cover save) making the 25% less impressive.



You can get a cover save bonus if the armour facing at the shooting unit is totally obsecured, yet the unit can see another face. The vehicle gets a +1 cover save bonus, which if you're using fortifications i.e fortress of redemption, you could get a 2+ cover save! It's not much different than 5E except that in 5E this was always a flat 3+ cover save whereas in 6E it will typically be a 4+ cover save.




It's not all sweets and honey for vehicles. The first thumbs down is that vehicles are WS1 if they moved, if they haven't moved, then they are WS0. This means that all infantry are hitting on a 3+ or auto hitting. While this isn't good for vehicles, I can say that I agree with this and it's fair. After all, infantry are hiding in wait for a passing vehicle (I think of Saving Private Ryan sticky bombs), not charging directly at it swords raised. Infantry assaulting vehicles seems pretty fair to me, and no doubt assault army players would agree i.e Orks and Tyranids. In no way is this fair to vehicles, especially not with Hull Points and more than half the basic troops in the game packing anti-tank grenades as free equipment. It means that, on average, whether it's a stationary Trukk, a Holofield Falcon jetting 36", or a combat maneuvering Leman Russ, a 10man squad with Krak grenades will almost certainly inflict at least 3 HP's worth of damage on them.

It is easier for a Tac Squad of marines to kill a flat out moving Holofield Falcon or Leman Russ in CC than it is to kill 2 other marines in close combat. Tanks basically auto-die in CC at this point, and that's really not much of an exaggeration, you might as well just flip the tank when something makes it into base contact.

I also really, really wish people would stop referencing Saving Private Ryan, they often seem to miss the guys who got gunned down climbing all over the other tank and the fact that they had to do a whole lot to the tank moving at less than a walking pace over rough ground, and it bears little resemblance to 40k where some 8ft tall Ork on a bike comes charging up with a big axe to whack on the armor or a tac squad runs up over open ground to the front of the tank that will never gun them all down and they magically attach all the grenades to weak points no matter how fast it's moving, with no chance of being crush and ground beneath treads or simply plowed into by a vehicle moving at highway speeds.

The problem with Orks and Tyranids was not vehicles, it was poor codex design and stuff all the AT units in the same slots with all the elite infantry killers and utility units, along with people using the wrong units for AT (e.g. Genestealers were never meant to be anti-tank units, they were good at it for 1 edition when 1 special rule was horrifically powerful, then never seemed to realize they weren't intended to be tank hunters, it was merely something they could attempt, and got mad when they stopped doing it well when said special rule got fixed).




Transport rules also got shafted. The first one is there is no 2" disembark radius from a vehicle - this isn't too bad.

I wouldn't say this next one is bad, but more of a change. If a vehicle moves 6", a unit can jump out and move 6". The unit cannot bail out if the vehicle moves over 12". This makes perfect sense, as I cannot get out of my car while it is doing 30mph +. Over all the movement distance is about the same, move 6" in a tank and bail out and move 6", 12" movement in total, so no biggy here.

One issue I do have, is that units cannot assault from a vehicle (unless its an assault vehicle) if it hasn't moved, which is totally lame. If a vehicle is stationary and hasn't moved, I cannot see why a unit cannot bail out and charge. I am pretty sure I am leap out of my stationary car and lay the smack down on someone's roody poo candy ***. The bigger issue is not being able to hold objectives at all within a transport, particularly for non-MEQ armies where when mechanized they tend not to have much more infantry (if at all) than MEQ armies but can't sit on an objective for up to 3 turns the way Marines can.

Though yes, being unable to charge out of a stationary vehicle basically removes a whole lot of the point of transports for many units, removes in entirely for many, especially less hardy units. Though it goes along with the general nerf to assault vectors like no assaulting from reserves at all.





I think vehicles have perhaps remained the same. Hull points have made some vehicles stronger i.e Venom and Ghost Ark, while something like a Rhino remains the same, but a Chimera got weaker. The damage table hasn't changed for some weapons i.e melta, but AP2 got better and others got worse as 5+ no longer wrecks, need a 6+ instead. I think you may want to re-examine these statements, you seem to be approaching this only from the perspective of any one shot inflicting a killing blow, rather than realizing the average firepower an army needs to kill vehicles at the same rate they did in 5E has dropped dramatically.



I guess one bonus of hull points is that you know the vehicle has 'wounds' so to speak. So if you glance a Rhino three times, you know what the end result is going to be. In 5th ed if you glanced a vehicle three times, you could get bad luck and get several shaken and stunned results, which was "less than ideal". By the same token you could also pen and kill it on the first shot however, still can. What we've got is two different overlapping vehicle kill mechanics making one of them redundant but still there, resulting in vehicles that simply do not have the staying power to do what tanks need to do.

Nothing else in the game has two overlapping kill mechanics (aside from a few special rules), or has such an enforced average (e.g. you don't kill a space marine just because you forced it to take 3 saves, even if he didn't fail any).



A nice new bonus is that vehicles can move that little bit further, as mentioned, in objective heavy missions, this is grand :) . The problem with this statement being that vehicles can no longer claim or contest objectives in any way, even with embarked infantry, except for HS units in one mission.



Shooting definitely changed for the better, there's no doubts about that. That's a +1 bonus for vehicles. *slightly* better, in that "lets hope for 6's" sort of way.




Of course you still have the normal advantages of mobility, and do not forget immunity from small arms fire for your units inside vehicles. This is still true, however as noted at the cost of being completely irrelavant to mission win conditions and being significantly easier to kill.




I think I am going to go out on a limb and say that vehicles got that little bit better. Hull points means they can reliably absorb punishment instead of getting blown up with a lucky glance or shut down early, yet this also balances it out in being able to destroy them. The only short end of the stick they got was no assaults, but 40k is now a shooting game and this is a another nail in the coffin for assault style armies. In no way does this balance out, the loss to vehicle survivability and the utter reliability of killing vehicles now does not make up for being able to shoot after a glancing hit or two (and dead on 3).

Were it only a 10/20% reduction in survivability, that might be one thing, but in CC in literally every way you're looking at reductions to survivaiblity of several multiples, and against many shooting attacks (especially for light/medium vehicles) an opponent will need half or less the firepower they used to to kill your tanks at the same rate.

[daboarder]

Essentially what HP's have done is turn vehicles into T6-10 2-4W models with no save (usually at best a 5+ cover) that suffer Instant Death or some other debilitating result on any to-wound roll that exceeds the minimum required to wound them, with most being reduced to T6 in CC even otherwise higher with WS0 or WS1 at best and no attacks.

First thought....Given that a rhino is only xpts this was needed.....needed so very much.

[DrLove42]

See I think strong vehicles got weaker, flisy DE raiders and the like stayed the same.

A Venom will still likely die to its first AT shot (S6-10) as its penetrated more often and open topped. Therefore it doesn't see much change, wheras a Land Raider is now more likely to bite it over time thanks to the glances

[isotope99]

Whilst I agree that there were a few obvious clangers in the article, I am generally fairly positive about the changes to vehicles. You still want them but they dominate the game less (not including fliers). Of course there are a few balance issues created, but over time these hopefully will even out.

Effectiveness vs. Durability

Vehicles are now more likley to die, but in the meantime with no other negative effects of glancing hits, they are more likely to stay mobile and firing (particularly single main weapon tanks like vindicators). Jink saves also help skimmers last a little while longer whilst firing at full strength.

If I was in charge: I don't like that skimmers don't get a jink save on turn 1 if your opponent goes first, would have preferred them to count as moving in turn 1. It's not like the Dark Eldar park up their raiders and wait for the go.

Assault

I generally like that vehicles are easier to hit in assault

If I was in charge: I think it would have been better to go WS0 stationary/WS1 <6"/WS10 >6" This way, apart from combat specialists, most would be hitting fast vehicles on 5s instead of 3s. More AV11 rear armour vehicles needed I think, AV10 is now too vulnerable.

The new rules on assaulting out of stationary transports feel completely unnecessary as this was a significant enough restriction already.

To be seen whether Chaos and Eldar codexes get some new assault transport options to offset this. I hope so.

Objectives

No holding objectives from within a transport feels very reasonable, you should have to risk a bit to win teh game.

If I was in charge: I would still allow an occupied transport to be a denial unit.

Winners and Losers

Biggest winners from the vehicle nerfs are the armies that couldn't have them (Daemons/nids) or couldn't crack them (orks).

Necrons also a winner mainly from the fact that the downsides don't hit them so hard with lots of hull points and snap fire Tesla.

Neutral are DE (less affected by assault and raiders can now fire whilst moving with a 5+ save)

Ignoring fliers, slight losers are marines of all varieties and guard but mainly because their super cheap hard to kill transports were a real drag on 5E in my opinion. Light artillery is not as good as it was but AV13/14 is still a challenge with more likely cover.

Biggest losers are Tau, less cover, easier to kill, railguns less crucial and craftworld Eldar, even more overpriced, but they may well be coming soon in the codex update queue.

[Vaktathi]

First thought....Given that a rhino is only xpts this was needed.....needed so very much.Except, not everything in the game is a rhino, rebalancing the core rules around one vehicle is...silly. Address the issue where it really lies, in the codex, as opposed to hitting every unit with the same bat just because of a costing issue with one vehicle. :p

[Regnir]

Well, your first problem is that you're offering an intelligent, fact driven retort to something that Mercer wrote.

:P

[Defenestratus]

Well, your first problem is that you're offering an intelligent, fact driven retort to something that Mercer wrote.

:P

This.

[imperialpower]

When I read the rule change I didn't like it but after playing a few games I think the change is a good one where as before generaly speaking whomever went first destroyed the oppostions tanks now it seems they are a lot more usefull since with the old rules most of the time your tanks were either 'crew shaken' or whatever they sat there not doing anything for a turn or two where as now even with a few glancing hits your tanks are still able to bring some fire power to your next turn. So for me the new rules make tanks able to fire more of the time thus making them bette in my opinion.

[Caitsidhe]

See I think strong vehicles got weaker, flisy DE raiders and the like stayed the same.

A Venom will still likely die to its first AT shot (S6-10) as its penetrated more often and open topped. Therefore it doesn't see much change, wheras a Land Raider is now more likely to bite it over time thanks to the glances

We are in agreement here (see... it is possible). I happen to think that with the proliferation of weapons designed to kill vehicles in 5th Edition, that very little has changed for light vehicles. I never expected my Rhino to last beyond round two, and if it did... gravy. The same is true here, except that now there is never any gravy. :) You get what you want out of them the first two rounds and you move on.

What this means is that cheap, light vehicles remained the same (or got better as for as application is concerned) and more expensive vehicles got WORSE.

[JMichael]

I really like the Hull Points system. While I believe it makes lightly armored vehicles a bit more fragile, if you aren't destroyed in a single turn by glances you can at least still shoot and move.

One thing about the assaults that really bugs me...It should be harder to hit fast skimmers, or especially those going flat out. A Wave Serpent moving 30-42" should be considerably harder to assault than a lumbering Land Raider moving 6". Or at least still get their Jink save against assaults...

Oh, and lets not forget the Eldar Vibro-Cannon...36" line no LoS auto glances all vehicles under the line. Take 3 batteries of these and good by tanks!

[Eberk]

Yes it very much has, you're math is wrong here. In 5E you'd need an average of 9 glances to kill it. You're not factoring in that the weapon destroyed/immobilized was a 1/3 chance that needed to be inflicted 3 times and treating it just like simply glancing 3 times.
Thanks for pointing that out... I read (skimmed) through the article and almost thought "hey, no worries about vehicles, won't change a thing" guess I was wrong.

[DarkLink]

Except, not everything in the game is a rhino, rebalancing the core rules around one vehicle is...silly. Address the issue where it really lies, in the codex, as opposed to hitting every unit with the same bat just because of a costing issue with one vehicle. :p

When a huge percentage of armies consisted of Rhino/Razorback spam in one form or another (or Chimera spam, or Venom spam), it's not the least bit silly. When more than 2/3 codices contain such inappropriately priced vehicles, you've got a big problem. GW made the absolutely correct decision here. Your solution would take a decade to work itself out.

[Vaktathi]

When a huge percentage of armies consisted of Rhino/Razorback spam in one form or another (or Chimera spam, or Venom spam), it's not the least bit silly. When more than 2/3 codices contain such inappropriately priced vehicles, you've got a big problem. GW made the absolutely correct decision here. Your solution would take a decade to work itself out.
That's why we have this cool thing called the Internet and White Dwarf through which to release Errata like every other gaming company in the world does does!

Instead we have issues where anything that isn't a rhino took a major unwarranted nerf as a result (honestly, how many issues did people have with dreads, leman russ tanks, hellhounds, falcons, wave serpents, predators, vindicators, sentinels, hammerheads, basilisks, griffons, whirlwinds, etc in 5th? almost none), which is why many playgroups are looking more like airshows than anything else now.

[Caitsidhe]

When a huge percentage of armies consisted of Rhino/Razorback spam in one form or another (or Chimera spam, or Venom spam), it's not the least bit silly. When more than 2/3 codices contain such inappropriately priced vehicles, you've got a big problem. GW made the absolutely correct decision here. Your solution would take a decade to work itself out.

The proper decision would have been to balance the vehicle costs in points correctly at the start. :) Barring that, the next best decision would have been to use errata to correct poor pricing choices. The worst decision, from the point of the consumer, is to invalidate their purchases. Let's think about this. Which would have been easier:

1. Simply correct units priced incorrectly.
2. Create an entirely new vehicle rules system with all new bugs and problems?

My view is that they didn't fix any problems associated with vehicles. They merely traded old problems for new problems. It is what it is and there isn't any point in belaboring the point. Some might point out that vehicles given too low a price point in the rules might be simply to sell more units, not unlike putting a new type of vehicle out that can only be hit on 6s and not releasing any of the counters until "later" so sales remain high. :)

[Vaktathi]

Exactly, we simply got a whole new host of vehicle problems and issues, not the least of which vehicles being easier to kill than they have ever been, simply to make the universe safe from Rhino spam :p

So yes, Rhino spam no longer functions as it once did, hurrah for those that hated it. Now we've got a huge range of issues across the board and drastically less functional transports in general. Balancing the rules around Rhinos doesn't take into account that not everything is a 35pt Rhino, many vehicles cost upwards of 3/4/5/8 times that, and furthermore not every transport is merely a battle-taxi, many are intended to be battle-bunkers or light/medium tanks in their own right.

Whereas a simple Errata (which they've done before and have excellent distribution avenues for) would have solved the issue just as well without borking everything else.

[Caitsidhe]

Exactly, we simply got a whole new host of vehicle problems and issues, not the least of which vehicles being easier to kill than they have ever been, simply to make the universe safe from Rhino spam :p

That is the ironic thing though, it doesn't discourage Rhino spam. The new rules (in my opinion) make the best vehicle buys those that are dirt cheap. The new rules make it even MORE important that you spend less for what you get. I'm even more likely to use a Rhino over a Land Raider now.


So yes, Rhino spam no longer functions as it once did, hurrah for those that hated it. Now we've got a huge range of issues across the board and drastically less functional transports in general. Balancing the rules around Rhinos doesn't take into account that not everything is a 35pt Rhino, many vehicles cost upwards of 3/4/5/8 times that, and furthermore not every transport is merely a battle-taxi, many are intended to be battle-bunkers or light/medium tanks in their own right.

It doesn't function for assault spam quite the same but it function EXACTLY (better in fact) for the way I used it. I almost always went as far as I could, jumped out and shot, got around to assaulting if useful later. I play CSM so using my troops in assault mode didn't really come up much for the last two years. :)


Whereas a simple Errata (which they've done before and have excellent distribution avenues for) would have solved the issue just as well without borking everything else.

But yes, on the fundamental point we agree. The insane attitude of refusing to admit mistakes and fixing problems with regular errata as the problem becomes apparent is foolish. You play Wood Elves? We might get around to it someday. :)

[Filthspew]

Vaktathi, you did a great job at showing the actual reality of the changes.

I was quite annoyed at that article, but did not have the energy to respond.

Sadly, I think there are many more examples of exchanging problems with new ones.

Wound allocation to mention one :mad:

But again, thanks for your effort.

[DarkLink]

That's why we have this cool thing called the Internet and White Dwarf through which to release Errata like every other gaming company in the world does does!


Which might be nice, if GW actually ever did that. But either way, the new vehicle rules are an improvement over 5th ed.

[Vaktathi]

Which might be nice, if GW actually ever did that. But either way, the new vehicle rules are an improvement over 5th ed.
I don't see where. They no longer serve any purpose towards achieving battlefield objectives besides simply trying to kill things (unlike MC's which can still contest or even score if they are troops), are significantly easier to kill, laughably so in CC, still are rather "meh" firebases when moving, transport utility is literally nothing but taxi service now, etc.

They're faster, but with less reason to move, they're shootier but only marginally (yay for hitting on 6's!), while they're easier to kill than they've ever been in the last 14 years if not ever, transports do less than they've ever done, and vehicles have less direct impact on win conditions than they've ever had.

[daboarder]

I don't see where. They no longer serve any purpose towards achieving battlefield objectives besides simply trying to kill things (unlike MC's which can still contest or even score if they are troops), are significantly easier to kill, laughably so in CC, still are rather "meh" firebases when moving, transport utility is literally nothing but taxi service now, etc.

They're faster, but with less reason to move, they're shootier but only marginally (yay for hitting on 6's!), while they're easier to kill than they've ever been in the last 14 years if not ever, transports do less than they've ever done, and vehicles have less direct impact on win conditions than they've ever had.

You answered your first paragraph in your second paragraph. Infantry (Including MC's) are INCREDIBLY SLOW in comparison to what they were in 5th. Not to mention that the flanks are much more important now right down to the unit level. 40K is more a company evel game than it ever has been and is much better for it.

Vehicles now actually operate the way they should

Your APC's act like APC's
Your Tank's act like tank's
And your fliers operate similar to how air power works.

You take vehicles for essentially 2 of these three.

Mobility
Firepower
Immunity to small arms

However they now also have all the liability a vehicle SHOULD have:

Like the requirement for infantry support in close engagements.
The need for air cover
and if you fire a couple of cannon rounds at an MBT and get direct hits without knocking it out you can bet that the crew is going to worry about al sorts of things like ruptured eye's, ear's, organ's...

[Vaktathi]

You answered your first paragraph in your second paragraph. Infantry (Including MC's) are INCREDIBLY SLOW in comparison to what they were in 5th. How so? Move and run is the same, while average charge distance increased.


Not to mention that the flanks are much more important now right down to the unit level. How so exactly?


40K is more a company evel game than it ever has been and is much better for it. Not to cause offense, but I think you are the first person I've seen make that statement. We have, if anything, more micromechanics than 40k has had in almost 15 years with a greater focus on individual models (challenges, many weapons/models being able to allocate their own hits, Look Out Sir, etc) as opposed to the greater army strategy than in previous editions (reserves play a much less prominent role with greater restrictions on how much can be reserved and actions upon entering, and risks for things like Deep Strike and Dangerous Terrain are much less punitive than previously, etc)




Vehicles now actually operate the way they should

Your APC's act like APC's
Your Tank's act like tank's Could you explain that a bit more, because that's incredibly vague and highly debateable, not to mention there are several classes of vehicles that fit neither of these descriptions. Walkers, IFV's, etc.

Tanks basically act like mobile artillery, sitting at the back of the board firing heavy weapons at as far a distance as they can manage, they aren't the line-breaking spearhead that tanks were invented to be. They're just too fragile, and the utility of their mobility means relatively little aside from moving to a new firing position.



And your fliers operate similar to how air power works. Flyers really operate nothing like how air power really works, on the scale of a game like 40k flyers should be nothing more than grounded terrain or an abstract airstrike option. Aircraft don't come in at small arms level to engage ground targets.

Flyers are just tanks that are more difficult to engage and move fast. Their incredible payloads, vertical vector of attack, long distance engagement, all the things that really make air power so potent don't really exist. Hell, even strategic bombers like Marauders in this game don't have bombs scarier than short barrel howitzers (S6 AP4). They're just tanks that get to move fast and make themselves hard to hit, nothing more.




You take vehicles for essentially 2 of these three.

Mobility
Firepower
Immunity to small arms

However they now also have all the liability a vehicle SHOULD have:

Like the requirement for infantry support in close engagements. Infantry support in 40k is a more joke and myth than reality, and basically boils down to A: killing all of enemy before they can engage and B: physically body blocking.

Other games do this infinitely better and much of the problem was that tanks do support of other tanks just as well as infantry, the difference now is that tanks just die far easier to everything.

Flames of War for instance allows infantry to fire defensively in support of tanks being assaulted and to pin down attackers and stop their attack if the infantry are close to the tanks. There is no such support/suppression mechanic in 40k.



The need for air cover Questionable, as noted above, air attack isn't really air attack, flyers are simply tanks that are harder to engage and that's about it.

[daboarder]

How so? Move and run is the same, while average charge distance increased.

By an inch. And I was referring to the fact that the ONLY way to move reliably fast across the battlefield for ANY unit is a transport. Historically in 40k the "fast infantry" had fleet, and fleet used to allow them to move, run AND assault, allowing such units to slinghot themselves across the battlefield. With the loss of this you now NEED transports to ensure that your infantry get across the board in a timely fashion, As to the presence of run...big whoop this does not make infantry based lists any faster all it means is that they sacrifice their fire power in order move D6', Compare this to the BASE 12' a vehicle gets and anyone can see that mechanised armies are even more relatively manoeuvrable than they were before.

How so exactly?

Wound allocation....you can no longer hide the models that do the heavy lifting in your army behind the 10 mooks with boltguns, It's anecdotal I know but trounced a Grey Knights Tournie player with my Nurgle terminator/Dread army because he hadn't quite grasped the idea between "hammer and anvil" (not the mission) Yet. In other words I killed off all his support models with ease by out manoeuvring him

Not to cause offense, but I think you are the first person I've seen make that statement. We have, if anything, more micromechanics than 40k has had in almost 15 years with a greater focus on individual models (challenges, many weapons/models being able to allocate their own hits, Look Out Sir, etc) as opposed to the greater army strategy than in previous editions (reserves play a much less prominent role with greater restrictions on how much can be reserved and actions upon entering, and risks for things like Deep Strike and Dangerous Terrain are much less punitive than previously, etc)

40K was not historically a "company" level command game, in 1st and 2nd it was a skirmish game and 3rd-5th made it into a weird clunky amalgamation of a strategic game and a skirmish game. 6th however has pretty much hit the balance nail firmly on the head with the inclusion of a number of small changes. For example given the new wound allocation rules allow flanks to matter, this in turn means that your troops choices are no longer "ablative" wounds for the lasgun, plasmagun and Powerfist, now you need to actually PLAN how you intend to aplly your force. Add in the fact that flanking makes even bolt guns and lasguns dangerous by allowing them to "target" the support elements in a unit and we can see that the game now operates smoothly as a game that straddles the line between strategic and skirmish. Perhaps Platoon would be a better choice of word but 40k typically involves disproportionate allocations of equipment due to its Sci-Fi nature therefore basing it on IG company is not an inappropriate choice.


Could you explain that a bit more, because that's incredibly vague and highly debateable, not to mention there are several classes of vehicles that fit neither of these descriptions. Walkers, IFV's, etc.

I did not really want to go into an in-depth dissertation but aright.
Walkers: No real parallels in modern military as such any designed "role" for these but if we assume that they take the place of close infantry support or better still "super heavy infantry" then we can see that YES walkers operational like they would. Basically they are like the old concept of Infantry tanks from the 30's. Heavily armoured units with good fire-power that are able to support infantry advances. Their damage potential in close combat along with their non restriction of movement in dense terrain means that these are doing what they theoretically should. Remeber no matter how hard you try you cant kill a walker with a lasgun. Essentially when it boils down to it walkers are basically just another MC mechanic therefore "wounds" fits them fine.

As to IFV's I didn't really mention them as they haven't really changed at all, Razorback's, Chimera's, Falcon's they pretty much work the way they always have, Your still usually paying little more than a heavy weapon or two for a squad to give it Mobility, Small arms protection and fire support when they get to where they need to be, so no real change in role or application. Mech armies are still to be feared due to the combination of MSU and mobility allowing them to obtain maximum efficiency of force.


Tanks basically act like mobile artillery, sitting at the back of the board firing heavy weapons at as far a distance as they can manage, they aren't the line-breaking spearhead that tanks were invented to be. They're just too fragile, and the utility of their mobility means relatively little aside from moving to a new firing position.

Tanks have NEVER really worked as a line breaking spearhead, The idea of the armoured cavalry charge is an entirely INACCURATE piece of Hollywood crap! Historically speaking tanks have ALWAYS been most effective as essentially direct mobile artillery support that is immune to small arms fire. Don't believe me actually go out and read, here are some names to start with if you are serious about looking into armoured warfare doctrine, Whittman, Rommel, Patton, Manstein, Montgomery. Zhukohv,Rokossovsky.

Flyers really operate nothing like how air power really works, on the scale of a game like 40k flyers should be nothing more than grounded terrain or an abstract airstrike option. Aircraft don't come in at small arms level to engage ground targets.

Your wrong, Flyers operate very similarly to the principles of air power employed by the armed forces today (given some leeway for the sake of abstraction). After WW2 a lot of military theorists proposed that air superiority would make ground conflict obsolete.....as history shows they were really really WRONG!, Flyers allow you effectively restrict the movement of the opponent by forcing him to hug cover, apply force where you need it WHEN you need it, Usually carry overwhelming firepower, and cannot effectively be engaged by ground forces. They also cannot take that village, hold it and ensure that the bad guys don't come back. 40k does a good job of replicating this, right down to aerial combat, Wheras those "strategic support options" you mentioned run into the trouble of "what happens when my aircraft run into your aircraft? Nothing they go on their own merry ways"

Flyers are just tanks that are more difficult to engage and move fast. Their incredible payloads, vertical vector of attack, long distance engagement, all the things that really make air power so potent don't really exist. Hell, even strategic bombers like Marauders in this game don't have bombs scarier than short barrel howitzers (S6 AP4). They're just tanks that get to move fast and make themselves hard to hit, nothing more.

This is not a problem with the core rules and is again abstract out of necessity, They operate more like warthogs than Superfortress's

Infantry support in 40k is a more joke and myth than reality, and basically boils down to A: killing all of enemy before they can engage and B: physically body blocking.

WELCOME TO THE REAL WORLD.....seriously how else do you think infantry support works? It works by either killing the enemy before they get close enough to your tank to engage it or making yourself a bigger target (by sitting in front of it if you have too), so really no change.

Other games do this infinitely better and much of the problem was that tanks do support of other tanks just as well as infantry, the difference now is that tanks just die far easier to everything.

I'm not sure what your saying here.....do you want to go play a different game? OK I'm not stopping you. Tanks support tanks? I assume you mean to imply that a pair of tanks can support each other in a close quarters engagement with infantry?....Yeah no, not really just makes for 2 targets.

Flames of War for instance allows infantry to fire defensively in support of tanks being assaulted and to pin down attackers and stop their attack if the infantry are close to the tanks. There is no such support/suppression mechanic in 40k.

And I dearly wish their was, but again the in not related to the tank rules. Tanks already cannot be locked in combat, nor can they even be charged by units that cannot hurt them, throw overwatch, bubble wrap and the fact that its the infantry that win the game into the mix and your basically achieving exactly what your describing above with a different mechanic.

On another note not sure how that relates to my premise that most vehicle get the option to do a choice of 2 out of 3 things to do far better than infantry.

Questionable, as noted above, air attack isn't really air attack, flyers are simply tanks that are harder to engage and that's about it.

So you don't think those chimera's or rhino's or Leman Russ MBT's need to worry about the Vendetta's, Stormraven's and Nightscythe's then?

Typically in 40k Flyers carry heavy anti-tank weapons and even the ones that do carry anti-infantry weapon's aren't entirely good at that role, you can shoot your nightsythes at the guard blob all day without losing a single one and still lose the game.




Replied in post for ease.

Edit: Basically 40k is now firmly a combined arms game where you use the right combination of tools for the job. Need a platform that cna move if you want it, offers heavy firepower and can't be hurt by the standard weapons of every army? Take a pred! Need to stop said pred from getting assaulted and dying? Take some infantry!

[Vaktathi]

By an inch. It's still something, and makes a big difference, especially when the maximum potential charge range is doubled, even if making that is rare, it's not necessarily uncommon to make an 8 or 9" charge.


And I was referring to the fact that the ONLY way to move reliably fast across the battlefield for ANY unit is a transport. Historically in 40k the "fast infantry" had fleet, and fleet used to allow them to move, run AND assault, allowing such units to slinghot themselves across the battlefield. With the loss of this you now NEED transports to ensure that your infantry get across the board in a timely fashion, As to the presence of run...big whoop this does not make infantry based lists any faster all it means is that they sacrifice their fire power in order move D6', Compare this to the BASE 12' a vehicle gets and anyone can see that mechanised armies are even more relatively manoeuvrable than they were before. Most units historically that had fleet typically still utilized lots of transports aside from Tyranids for obvious reasons because quite simply their infantry died too quickly otherwise. In the current state of the game, relatively speaking there are few units with Fleet and many if not most aren't exactly at the top of what most people would consider excellent assault units, so to the majority of armies in the game, no change in infantry speed occurred other than a longer potential charge distance.

As for vehicles being the only reliably fast method, true, but they also lost most of their utility aside from simply getting from point A to point B, which isn't necessarily the sole primary function of many transports. You can no longer assault out of even a stationary closed-top transport, can no longer hold or contest an objective, etc. which means, for many units, it won't make a difference if they're footslogging or not, if they're assault oriented they may be toast either way, and if they're supposed to be holding objectives it makes the game a whole lot harder for non-MEQ armies.

This is of course on top of average transport lifespan being significantly lower, and thus assurance that you'll reach your destination much slimmer.




Wound allocation....you can no longer hide the models that do the heavy lifting in your army behind the 10 mooks with boltguns, It's anecdotal I know but trounced a Grey Knights Tournie player with my Nurgle terminator/Dread army because he hadn't quite grasped the idea between "hammer and anvil" (not the mission) Yet. In other words I killed off all his support models with ease by out manoeuvring him Not sure I'd call that importance of flanking per se, but I get your point, though I haven't seen it have quite the effect you are describing on anything approaching a consistent basis after players see that happen once or twice in their first game of the edition and start wising up.




40K was not historically a "company" level command game, in 1st and 2nd it was a skirmish game and 3rd-5th made it into a weird clunky amalgamation of a strategic game and a skirmish game. 6th however has pretty much hit the balance nail firmly on the head with the inclusion of a number of small changes. For example given the new wound allocation rules allow flanks to matter, this in turn means that your troops choices are no longer "ablative" wounds for the lasgun, plasmagun and Powerfist, now you need to actually PLAN how you intend to aplly your force. Which really makes more sense on a skirmish scale than a company scale when it comes to the special weapons in an individual squad, at a company command level these are not details a commander would really be involved in, that's a squad level mechanic more at home in a skirmish game. And really, it boils down to "don't put your special weapon guys out at any particular edge of the squad".




I did not really want to go into an in-depth dissertation but aright.
Walkers: No real parallels in modern military as such any designed "role" for these but if we assume that they take the place of close infantry support or better still "super heavy infantry" then we can see that YES walkers operational like they would. Basically they are like the old concept of Infantry tanks from the 30's. Heavily armoured units with good fire-power that are able to support infantry advances. Their damage potential in close combat along with their non restriction of movement in dense terrain means that these are doing what they theoretically should. Remeber no matter how hard you try you cant kill a walker with a lasgun. Essentially when it boils down to it walkers are basically just another MC mechanic therefore "wounds" fits them fine. The problem here is that MC's butcher them in CC and they're generally easier to kill even when they cost as much as MC"s and typically aren't as killy as MC's, and they can still be insta-killed and disabled in ways MC's can't or can only suffer by very specialized weaponry.



As to IFV's I didn't really mention them as they haven't really changed at all, Razorback's, Chimera's, Falcon's they pretty much work the way they always have, Your still usually paying little more than a heavy weapon or two for a squad to give it Mobility, Small arms protection and fire support when they get to where they need to be, so no real change in role or application. Mech armies are still to be feared due to the combination of MSU and mobility allowing them to obtain maximum efficiency of force. The problem with these units is that they don't have the lifespan they need to really do their job, they don't really just transport from point A to point B they need to also shoot and in some cases are very much designed to be mobile bunkers, and their lifespan has been lowered too dramatically to effectively carry out that role, meaning they need to either play as ineffectual wannabe HS tanks, or overcosted battle-taxi's.



Tanks have NEVER really worked as a line breaking spearhead, The idea of the armoured cavalry charge is an entirely INACCURATE piece of Hollywood crap! Historically speaking tanks have ALWAYS been most effective as essentially direct mobile artillery support that is immune to small arms fire. Don't believe me actually go out and read, here are some names to start with if you are serious about looking into armoured warfare doctrine, Whittman, Rommel, Patton, Manstein, Montgomery. Zhukohv,Rokossovsky. Operation Fall Gelb, Operation Barbarossa, Operation Bagration, Operation Desert Storm, etc would disagree that the idea of tanks being a spearhead is hollywood crap. I'm not saying that tanks don't require infantry support, or that they are ineffectual at mobile artillery support, but there are many world changing events that would disagree that tanks are more effective as mobile artillery support for infantry attacks. That's how the French tried to use their tanks in 1940, the Germans used theirs in massed spearheads and accomplished in 5 weeks what they couldn't in 4 years previously against a foe in prepared positions with superior numbers and quality of arms.

I've very much read many books by such authors, including Guderian's. In many cases a tanks biggest weapon is its engine, and guess what infantry don't keep up with? The problem in 40k is that mobility lacks utility and survivability in 6th edition.




Your wrong, Flyers operate very similarly to the principles of air power employed by the armed forces today (given some leeway for the sake of abstraction). After WW2 a lot of military theorists proposed that air superiority would make ground conflict obsolete.....as history shows they were really really WRONG!, Flyers allow you effectively restrict the movement of the opponent by forcing him to hug cover, apply force where you need it WHEN you need it, Usually carry overwhelming firepower, and cannot effectively be engaged by ground forces. They also cannot take that village, hold it and ensure that the bad guys don't come back. 40k does a good job of replicating this, right down to aerial combat, Wheras those "strategic support options" you mentioned run into the trouble of "what happens when my aircraft run into your aircraft? Nothing they go on their own merry ways" This is really a very different argument than I was making, I'm not saying aircraft can win wars by themselves, I'm saying that at the scale 40k operates at, aircraft are simply not going to be operating anywhere near what would visually be the battlefield for more than a fraction of a second at a height about a dozen times that of the FLGS even on a low attack pass. They're not these things that hover over a battlefield a couple meters up shooting off much the same weapons that are mounted on tanks, they engage from much farther away with generally larger ordnance.

Whereas in 40k, they're just fast tanks. They don't carry any more firepower than battle tanks do, they can be engaged by ground forces, they don't restrict movement or force you to hug cover any more than another tank would except perhaps by dint of their mobility, and they aren't necessarily there to apply force when you need it. There isn't much that 40k does a good job of replicating when it comes to aircraft.



This is not a problem with the core rules and is again abstract out of necessity, They operate more like warthogs than Superfortress's Even a Warthog isn't operating at anything resembling 40k scale, it's one of the most up close and personal fixed wing attack craft developed since the second world war and its intended engagement distance with its 30mm cannon is 1.2 kilometers, while it's missiles are intended for engaging armored targets at ranges of up to 22 kilometers and typically no closer than 3 or 4KM and it's typical operating altitude when engaging armor is 4000-15000 feet. No, aircraft operate nothing like flyers in 40k do, they're just harder to hit tanks.




WELCOME TO THE REAL WORLD.....seriously how else do you think infantry support works? It works by either killing the enemy before they get close enough to your tank to engage it or making yourself a bigger target (by sitting in front of it if you have too), so really no change. Or, you know, suppression? That thing 99% of ammunition in most conflicts is used up doing? You don't protect tanks by physically body blocking them or going out and slaying every enemy soldier on the field, you pin down attackers and force them to break off their attack and/or fall back.

There's nothing "Real world" about infantry support being comprised of attempting to kill every possible assailant and physically body blocking.



I'm not sure what your saying here.....do you want to go play a different game? OK I'm not stopping you. No, I'm saying that trying to say "well tanks just need infantry support!" in 40k is silly, because infantry support in 40k doesn't do anything more tanks can't do either in that regard, which is body block and shoot stuff to death. The big difference now being that tanks typically need about half the firepower or less from most weapons that they used to to be killed.


Tanks support tanks? I assume you mean to imply that a pair of tanks can support each other in a close quarters engagement with infantry?....Yeah no, not really just makes for 2 targets. See above.



And I dearly wish their was, but again the in not related to the tank rules. Tanks already cannot be locked in combat, nor can they even be charged by units that cannot hurt them, throw overwatch, bubble wrap and the fact that its the infantry that win the game into the mix and your basically achieving exactly what your describing above with a different mechanic. Overwatch sadly, the vast majority of the time, makes little to no difference in the outcome of most assaults, especially if template weapons are not involved. Bubble wrap works if the enemy hasn't punched a hole in that line but that's easier to do than ever and is just physically body blocking. Almost every army, if not every army, has basic troops units that are very capable of killing tanks in CC or at the least can be made so, and given how unlikely tanks are to survive CC being unable to be locked isn't much of a benefit given that any tank, be it statioanry Rhino or flat out moving Falcon is easier to kill in CC for most units than 2 basic Marines.



On another note not sure how that relates to my premise that most vehicle get the option to do a choice of 2 out of 3 things to do far better than infantry. It was really only addressing the last part, however I'd argue that assumption in 40k as well. Many tanks only have 1 weapon so moving and shooting isn't much different than that of the infantry and of those that have multiples they're firing Snapshots with everything but 1 or with everything in which case those weapons aren't exactly being very effective. They're more mobile yes but...to what end?



So you don't think those chimera's or rhino's or Leman Russ MBT's need to worry about the Vendetta's, Stormraven's and Nightscythe's then?I'm saying that essentially they're dealt with no differently than other vehicles aside from needing a greater volume of fire to achieve sufficient hits. If you're shooting at them with your own flyers than it's no different than shooting at ground targets, and otherwise you just need a greater volume of the same firepower you'd throw at similar non-flyer targets given that otherwise there are a grand total of 2 nearly identical specialized AA platforms in the game (Hydras and Aegis Interceptor turrets)

Again, basically it boils down to vehicles just being tanks you need 6's to hit with most weapons.



Typically in 40k Flyers carry heavy anti-tank weapons and even the ones that do carry anti-infantry weapon's aren't entirely good at that role, you can shoot your nightsythes at the guard blob all day without losing a single one and still lose the game. Yup, most do carry AT guns, but they're generally the same weapons as the ground based tanks, unlike real aircraft that generally carry much heavier payloads (there's a world of difference between an artillery shell and a 500lb bomb). For example, a Razorwing doesn't differ much from a Ravager in role, armor or firepower, the Razorwing you just need 6's to hit, otherwise it's largely doing the exact same thing, except with 2 darklances and some missiles instead of 3 darklances.

[daboarder]

Operation Fall Gelb, Operation Barbarossa, Operation Bagration, Operation Desert Storm, etc would disagree that the idea of tanks being a spearhead is hollywood crap. I'm not saying that tanks don't require infantry support, or that they are ineffectual at mobile artillery support, but there are many world changing events that would disagree that tanks are more effective as mobile artillery support for infantry attacks. That's how the French tried to use their tanks in 1940, the Germans used theirs in massed spearheads and accomplished in 5 weeks what they couldn't in 4 years previously against a foe in prepared positions with superior numbers and quality of arms.

I've very much read many books by such authors, including Guderian's. In many cases a tanks biggest weapon is its engine, and guess what infantry don't keep up with? The problem in 40k is that mobility lacks utility and survivability in 6th edition.


Just addressing this point at the moment as honestly it's what I find most interesting.

First thing, You've mentioned pretty much the classic blitzkrieg battles (modern equivalents too) and given the authors I listed that's the obvious thing to do. However you've got them wrong, I said that Armoured cavalry charges are Hollywood crap and they are, all those offensives you listed prove it, Yes they all involve the use of fast moving armoured forces to shock and awe the opponent as well as apply force where needed. This is on a strategic level and once actual combat operations against a foe were commenced the tanks involved in these conflicts DID NOT charge in the manner of Agincourte which is what you are implying.
In fact most of the assaults conducted during those operations (which would be analogous to 40k scale) were conducted by the storm trooper battalions and not the stereotypical crush and grind (which is a very WW1 doctrine)

Secondly in your second paragraph you mention that Infantry cannot keep up with tanks, The problem with this statement is that Blitzkrieg is the use of combined arms armies, Mechanized infantry, Aircraft and tanks all operating together.

Final note: I just want to clarify that when I said "support infantry" I meant more in the doctrine of WW2 than the 30's.

Essentially THIS from 2:19 onwards:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uoxTpBxTaEU

Is NOT how tanks operate.

THIS IS:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBI9d0-IfEM&feature=related
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=GkUnMhD2qTY[/url

Or this from 2:30
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GtebNcSSgFw

[Vaktathi]

Sorry it took so long to reply.

Yes, blitzkrieg involved combined arms, quite often however the tanks would engage or pierce through a line before infantry arrived, outside of cities/forests/hills/etc the tanks typically did quite well.

There very much are situations where tanks will advance and overrun positions. For example, during the first Iraq war at 73 Eastings, perhaps the last real notable armor engagement of the last 25 years, the US armored forces basically just rolled up, onto, and past the Iraqi entrenched positions, driving straight into their assembly and reserves areas blasting things at close range as they drove through. The aggressive, direct approach being a large factor (in addition to technological superiority) in the near total annihilation of the Iraqi forces consisting of nearly 90 tanks and 70 APC's and other vehicles at the cost of 1 US IFV, standing off and exchanging fire would have resulted in a far more favorable situation for the Iraqi defenders, with infantry playing very little role in the battle in terms of active engagement with opposing forces.

[Archon Charybdis]

I like to push my plastic tanks across the board and go "VROOOM VROOM PKEW PKEW BOOOM!"

[daboarder]

Sorry it took so long to reply.

Yes, blitzkrieg involved combined arms, quite often however the tanks would engage or pierce through a line before infantry arrived, outside of cities/forests/hills/etc the tanks typically did quite well.

There very much are situations where tanks will advance and overrun positions. For example, during the first Iraq war at 73 Eastings, perhaps the last real notable armor engagement of the last 25 years, the US armored forces basically just rolled up, onto, and past the Iraqi entrenched positions, driving straight into their assembly and reserves areas blasting things at close range as they drove through. The aggressive, direct approach being a large factor (in addition to technological superiority) in the near total annihilation of the Iraqi forces consisting of nearly 90 tanks and 70 APC's and other vehicles at the cost of 1 US IFV, standing off and exchanging fire would have resulted in a far more favorable situation for the Iraqi defenders, with infantry playing very little role in the battle in terms of active engagement with opposing forces.

No worries mate all good.

hmm 73 Easting, I must admit I'm nto sure what your getting at here, from what I've read, it was the Iraq's that were attempting to overrun G-troop at 73 Easting, a battle that lasted the better part of a day or so. In fact the I think it shows exactly why tanks SHOULDN'T be used to engage in that manner because the Iraqi's were suffering catastrophic losses, especially with their lack of air support.

Are you sure its 73 Easting you are referring too?

given here (ctrl+f 73 Easting)
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/100-15/Ch5.htm

Picture of battle map (lets see if this works)

The American forces allowed the Iraqi tanks to move into their field of fire thus giving them the advantage, in fact I'd argue that it again supports my point if anything.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/100-15/Fig5-10.gif

That's the engagement above, it lasted 6 hours, but there was no charge really, the Americans were holding their position. Artillery and Air power had to be used extensively to prevent the Iraqi's from overwhelming G troop after they had expended most of their ammunition.

[Vaktathi]

I'm pretty sure that was it, there were several engagments by two or three different armored groups, often lumped into the "73 eastings" battle. I believe the one illustrated there was the feint attack that took place on the 2nd day of engagements, while the engagement I was referring to took place on the 26th of Feb 1991 not 27, when a sandstorm lifted and the US tanks were able to finally locate the Iraqi's and basically just overran them.

[daboarder]

I'm pretty sure that was it, there were several engagments by two or three different armored groups, often lumped into the "73 eastings" battle. I believe the one illustrated there was the feint attack that took place on the 2nd day of engagements, while the engagement I was referring to took place on the 26th of Feb 1991 not 27, when a sandstorm lifted and the US tanks were able to finally locate the Iraqi's and basically just overran them.

OK it will be the Easting engagements, which the 73 was merely one of. Perhaps its 70 or 74.

Just to be clear the above was a night engagement on the evening of the 26th that lasted until the morning of the 27th.

Off the top of my head I'd say the engagement your referring too is the exception rather than the rule and I'd tentatively suggest that the HUGE technological supremacy of the American and British armoured corp's is what allowed it to happen. Basically I don't think the Americans could have pulled it off against modern counterparts. But I'll reply in more detail later.

EDIT: Your not referring to Al Busayyah are you?