Monday, November 7, 2011

What is Anti-Tank?



This is something that has been getting to me for a while. Forgive the intrusion into what is going to be quite a bit of necron posting but this is something I feel might need to be put out there. It is mostly geared toward non-imperial armies but I think it has something most people can take away.

So what is Anti-Tank? Well if you listen to the internet anti-tank is melta. That’s it. Nothing else counts or is considered. It’s an unfortunate but true tale. I’m going to cover the different aspects of anti-tank in this post hopefully to give people a different view that shows them that anti-tank can exist without the big “M”.

First the definition of anti-tank as I see it and pertaining to our hobby: Something that can consistently disable or destroy vehicles in a standard game of 40k. **Note I make no distinction between shooting and assault based anti-tank**

Now that that’s established we all know there are two phases where damage takes place; assault and shooting. Unlike most players I remember that there is an assault phase but we’ll start with the shooting phase.

Now you’ve read my definition of anti-tank. That means when I break it down into two sub-groups (same as most people) I break it down into suppression and destruction. Now suppression is pretty much all Strength 5-7. This naturally depends on the target but it’s a good generalized place to start. Weapons in this range generally are multi-shot weapons and are, when used against vehicles, pretty much designed to prevent the enemy vehicle from shooting/moving. Things like heavy bolters, auto-cannons, MC Devourers, Assault Cannons, Gauss & Tesla weapons, Multi-Lasers, and Scatter Lasers are all excellent examples of suppression shooting. Some of the above are better against infantry but in the current mech environment you’ll sometimes end up shooting them at tanks.

Then you’ve got true anti-tank. Generally anything Strength 8 and above falls into this category though again Strength 7 is that wild card. Here is where most people will say the only reliable anti-tank has the melta rule or is AP1. I entirely disagree. Missile Launchers, Harpoon Launchers, Lascannons, Upgraded Auto-cannons, Heavy Gauss Cannons, Rokkit Launchas, and a large number of other weapons will destroy tanks.

So why do people focus on melta? Well the +1 means that ½ the penetrating hits will cause an explosion. Also within half range you’re massively increasing your chance to penetrate. But here is where I always wonder why people who love melta as anti-tank don’t consider assault based anti-tank to be valid. How many vehicle mounted melta is there? The answer is not much outside of a very few units in Imperial Armies. So generally melta weapons means boots on the ground or out of the hatch. I’m going to put up a small chart of the % of a melta kill within 6” at BS 4 and Strength 8:

AV10 – 30%
AV11 – 27%
AV12 – 24%
AV13 – 21%
AV14 – 18%

Well 20%-30% is pretty darn solid a chance for killing tanks. However it’s still a pretty low chance for a single model weapon.

Close combat is what most players out there seem to consider a last resort to eliminating vehicles. Why? The roll to his is generally one of the premier reasons people state close combat isn’t an effective way to kill tanks. Don’t forget that it leaves your models that just blew up the tank standing in place to take the fury of the unit inside the popped transport. Also the fact that you had to run through gunfire to get there. All of these are valid issues with CC oriented anti-tank.

Let’s talk about CC anti-tank suppression. Guess how it works….Ready? People move more than 6” to keep you from hitting them on a 4+ or less. That’s right, sometimes to suppress enemy vehicles you just have to exist.
Outside of this let’s look at the differences between shooting and combat oriented anti-tank. We’ll based the following on AV11/11/10 vehicles since that “spam” is so common. Let’s use the premier troop unit for anti-tank…IG Melta Vets in a Chimera. A unit of IG Melta Vets will have 3 shots and by the above chart have a 84% chance to kill the tank. That’s pretty impressive.

Before we continue let’s assume most people who are going to be using CC anti-tank come in a few categories. Generally multiple attacks (3-4) at Strength 5 or higher and more than a few Strength 4 with rending. That’s a pretty broad brush but let’s take a look at the math. We’ll even use a similarly pointed unit. Since Necrons are hot right now what about Wraiths? It’s not quite a fair balance as the Wraiths have a higher threat range (18 instead of 12). On the same vehicle as the above 4 Wraiths will have 16 attacks. If the target moves 7+” (i.e. an already suppressed tank) then we’re are looking at only a 26% chance at destroying the vehicle. If it only moved 6” hoping to do some damage our chance jumps to…..87%. Wow…higher than the best and cheapest anti-tank unit in the game. (Side note: 10 Genestealers produce almost the exact same results)

It’s something I don’t feel people take into account enough when it comes to CC oriented anti-tank. People don’t consider the impact on your opponent’s movement and shooting phases, the multiple attacks, or the really think about how many things can impact AV10. Another thing I don’t think most people are Imperially focused tend to recognize is that unlike them, our CC oriented tank killers are almost never, ever troops. In most imperial armies though the most consistent platform for Melta is troops which I think heavily influences the thought process.

So what is anti-tank really? It's an army wide ability to destroy or suppress enemy vehicles. Key words there are "ARMY WIDE". It's something you build your army around but in a way that no way compromises it's ability to perform against non-mech spammed armies.

I’ll leave you with this since it’s going to be expanded on in my Necron review. Anti-Tank isn’t from a single source and an army can be designed to kill tanks without a single melta gun in.

Comments (29)

Loading... Logging you in...
  • Logged in as
I love the direction they took Necrons in regards to AT and I do see where your going with this.
1 reply · active 699 weeks ago
Very good article.
I'll chime in with some points:

1. Certain weapons and targets will prevent Destroyed (Explodes) results entirely. These include S4 vs AV10, AP-, and special rules that result in a -1 to the damage roll.

2. Models cannot use emergency disembarkation if their transport is surrounded. Besides allowing models to disembark from anywhere and not just entry points, it does nothing to save units disembarking wrecked transports from being automatically removed because they can't move within 1" of enemy models, or into impassable terrain.

3. Damage (Immobilized and Weapon Destroyed) results are cumulative.

So yeah, Tesla and Gauss weapons are going to eat mechanized armies if the Necron player can prevent disembarkation using Scarabs and other resources.
Dashofpepper's avatar

Dashofpepper · 699 weeks ago

Totally agree with the article. A++, would read from author again.
4 replies · active 698 weeks ago
Interesting point about CC anti-tank suppressing vehicles by existing. A couple key differences between CC and shooting AT that that brought to mind:

1. Shooting suppresses vehicles in the FOLLOWING turn, while CC suppresses vehicles in the PRECEDING turn. Assuming that it's better to suppress earlier, that's a point in CC AT's favor.

2. On the other hand, that type of suppression gives your OPPONENT primary control over which vehicles are suppressed, while shooting AT gives YOU primary control over which are suppressed. Point to shooting.
As an Ork player for several years, it's quite interesting reading this article considering Orks have no melta, and otherwise rely immensely on getting stuck in (both in regards to assault, as well as ramming) to take out AV12 and up vehicles. Lootas are great for suppressing and opening AV10 and Av11, and Tankbustas and Rokkit Kanz can work well for everything potentially, but there's so much faith and reliance placed in the tried and trusted Powerklaw, not to mention the Deffrolla. And hell, even then I'm never entirely certain how to deal with AV13 walkers in the heat of battle.

But, thinking about it, a large part of my play of Orks is using the synergy of my entire army as a combined front to deal with both AV and Infantry as the situation is presented. Very few units are stuck in being only particularly useful against one or the other. Tankbustas are just useful against MEQ as they are against AV, Lootas can spread the Dakka love over light AV and infantry, Boyz are a natural assimilation of being able to deal with both threats, often simultaneously.

It's been a very interesting process as I look to start a new army, the mental change in how one views and addresses enemy armour on the field, a massive shift to relying heavily on "contact" warfare to heavy reliance on ranged warfare.

But I do find your point about suppressing vehicles based purely on the threatening presence of CC AT very interesting, particularly because of my experience with Orks. It's not something I've actually taken into consideration, but it's something I'll definitely keep in mind from now on. Thanks!
Things to remember: Suppression never reduces your workload. You can suppress the enemy vehicles all you like, but if you aren't getting any actual damage though you'll just have to do it against next turn.

Second, some vehicles are resistant or immune to various kinds of suppression. That Land Raider full of transported death isn't all that concerned that it has been shaken or stunned last turn. Same with any transport with extra armor. GK as a whole just laugh at suppression.

Last, melee works. But not (often) on the first turn, and ranged AT generally has more vehicles in LOS and range than a melee unit has vehicles in it's threat range.

I think Necrons are going to depend heavily on melee to kill vehicles. The codex just doesn't have the guns at hand to do it. I don't think you will be using Scarabs to surround vehicles, I think you will *have* to use them to kill said vehicles. There are all of 5 AP 1 guns. 2 are one use only, one is the Skimmer death ray, and none are particularly cheap or spammable. There are all of 5 more guns that are S7 or better. One is AP -. None are notably cheap and only two are spammable. Plus a haywire weapon. Trying to Gauss vehicles to death doesn't work very well. That leaves melee combat, which thanks to the wording on Entropic Strike, Scarabs do so very well. Here's to hoping the FAQ doesn't gut that.
9 replies · active 698 weeks ago
Grogg, you are dismissing the combo fact of the necrons, if you immobilize a vehicle that is surrounded by scarabs, they will not be able to disembark and next turn will be entropiced to death by the attacks killing the passengers in the process.
2 replies · active 698 weeks ago
Maybe. I worry about the 35 point cost and 4+ armor on the Crypteks. I admit, I was insufficiently specific with my lascannon reference. I meant lascannon HWTs and such, not the Vendetta which wins due to transport capacity and incredible points efficiency.

I do hope you are more right than me, but right now before I've seen much actual play, these are my concerns and the way I would build an army. We'll see what shakes out on the tabletop.
1 reply · active 698 weeks ago
The main problems I have with busting vehicles in CC are these:

1. Sometimes, you really, really want that vehicle busted in the shooting phase, because it's a transport, and one of your units could really, really stand to be immune to shooting next turn by assaulting the contents. Or you really, really want to kill the contents, I guess.

2. (Related) It leaves your ass in the wind. If you're Necrons and you have wraiths, you don't care. If you're Tyranids and you have Genestealers, it's not worth getting the unit shot to pieces after popping a chimera or a rhino.

3. Dark Eldar. Everything in Dash's army, for instance, can move 12" and fire to full effect. If I build my list assuming that I will kill vehicles in CC, I simply haven't got a chance.
2 replies · active 698 weeks ago

Post a new comment

Comments by