Would one of these make a good final boss?
>>44811079
Are you playing an Iraqi conscript game?
>>44811079
No, in fantasy world it would be completely invulnerable. Nothing would even scratch its armor.
>>44811123
Even with magic and high-level martials?
>>44811079
Not for a MIG-29 game. It would suffice as a level 3 cretin.
For a fantasy setting: sure, but fireballs would still cause a lot of problems if you could get one down the barrel. Also lighting would certainly fry all the circuits similar to an EMP blast.
For a Modern Setting: not really. Any decent merc party would have a Tandem HEAT missile at their disposal, would eat right through an Abrahms.
For a sci fi setting: lolno one shot from the PCs starship watingin in orbit and this thing would be a crater in the ground.
>>44811123
It would run out of fuel in two hours, after which you just need a wizard to sneak up on it and bury it in the mud.
>>44811079
If you're not equipped to deal with a tank, it's save or die except you don't get a save. If you are then it's a moderately dangerous opponent but nothing special on its own.
what system are you playing?
>>44811123
oh boy I just see the incoming 'arguemnts'.
>>44811123
magic would tear it a new one: Banishment on the tank.
The tank is gone.
A good firestorm or suchlike on the engine grille, and tank goes bye bye.
fireballs or lighting would wreck it.
I'm pretty sure a high level fireball would be equivalent to a tandem HEAT charge at least, if not more powerful.
>>44811136
>Also lighting would certainly fry all the circuits similar to an EMP blast.
No, the tank's armour acts like a faraday cage.
>>44811079
we can't just assume how it will go because of lack of info.
what system? what powerlevel? environment/terrain to fight in?? equipment? any other particular oddities compared to standard tanks?
>>44811123
Depends on what system you're playing. I can't see the break DC of composite armor as being completely impossible to beat.
And in Exalted, the Abrams would get wrecked almost instantly.
>>44811160
AFAIK some system statted the standard fireball to be about 33% more effective than a grenade. not really that powerful.
>>44811160
A fireball would be more like a medium sized thermobaric warhead. HEAT works on a very specific mechanism.
>>44811162
It doesn't have to be grounded to get wiped by an EMP blast. There's bound to be a fantasy equivalent lighting/ball lightning/etc that delivers so much energy that even if it went right through the tank into the ground, it would still fry all the circuits on the way.
>>44811136
>lighting would certainly fry all the circuits similar to an EMP blast
So...It'd do fuck all since we've had shielding and grounding down since the 60s?
>>44811196
The circuits aren't on the outside of the tank so would would they be fried by the heating effects of the current? Sure, there are the cameras and the paint job might be set on fire. But an M1 is very well designed for high survivability against EMPs. If you're sending enough energy into the tank to destroy the circuits you're probably also melting the armour.
>>44811225
A lightning strike would probably cause severe hearing damage inside that metal shell though. And the antenna would be gone.
It'd make an excellent mid level boss in most games. As a final boss, the power level has usually gotten a bit ridiculous by then.
A level 5 d&d party would have extreme difficulty and likely a tpk, a level 10 party could handle it but it'd still likely lead to a player death or two. A level 20 party would rofflestomp an abrams.
>>44811188
>>44811189
high level fireball or firestorm would still punch through or at least cause the engine to stop working. It doesn't really matter, almost any high level spell would render the tank useless, or the party unkillable to the tank (who lacks any magic)
>Everyone goes Ethereal
>Move through the tank
>Return to normal plane inside the tank
>Proceed to stab the crew to death the old fashioned way
>teleport tank upside down and facing away from you
>Diplomacy the crew
>Move Earth
>Move it so that the tank is now in an 18 ft hole
>'Disintegrate' the tank
>'Fear' on the tank crew
>Some kind of cold spell that freezes the whole thing into a block of solid ice
>Enlarge person
>on the tank crew
>Vorpal sword goes right through the armor, literally walk up and slice it to bits (after being made invisible and hastened)
>>44811079
depends on the powerlevel and what are you playing, i guess it could give most DnD characters quite some trouble if they are not lvl 20 mages
>>44811079
In one of our first sessions last campaign, the speedster deposited a villain in the way of an oncoming tank.
He then proceeded to lift the tank up (from under it, where it ran him over) and threw it at the party.
So nah, not for Mutants & Masterminds, anyway.
>>44811160
HEAT works by directing explosive pressure on a liner, which deforms it into a super-pressurised penetrator jet. Tandem HEAT is like that, but does it twice in quick succession to beat mechanisms that block the first one but are then useless, like reactive armour or some composites. It doesn't have much to do with actual heat.
In other words, tank armour is something like "automatically blocks one attack to this location, then is expended", so just having a stronger fireball wouldn't mean anything unless you could guarantee a follow up hit to the same spot of equal strength.
Much harder to cope with would be rock to mud.
>>44811079
>>44811123
You're supposed to get creative fighting it: I've heard of adventurers fighting tanks before, and the usual way to defeat them is to wedge them into a position where they get stuck and unable to move. Could force the party to think outside of the box, since depending on how exactly you process them (as an entity or calculating HP based on the thickness of the metal that composes them), nothing short of summoning an earthquake/meteor/orb of annihilation/detonating a bag of holding will really phase them before they turn a mid to early late game party into paste.
Nevertheless, I've heard that its 120 mm gun is 5d20 or some other insane shit that'll rip the party's meatshield a new one if he isn't trying to dodge the thing like everyone else.
>>44811160
The Abrams is largely made of ceramic: lightning wouldn't even classify as doing lethal damage to it, contrary to what C&C would have you believe; fireball might work, but you'll need /lots/ of fireballs, and there's probably more effective ways to destroy it what that many casters.
>>44811079
No because tanks aren't designed to exist in a vacuum. A single tank is pretty damn vulnerable, especially if it's in a defensive position or can't take advantage of its speed or maneuverability. Tanks exist with infantry, with scouts, with other kinds of units to cover weaknesses and vulnerabilities of each other.
One tank isn't that big of a deal in any setting -- even super hardcore realistic modern.
Four tanks with an infantry platoon on the other hand and an armored scout squad on the other hand...
>>44811281
>Nevertheless, I've heard that its 120 mm gun is 5d20 or some other insane shit that'll rip the party's meatshield a new one if he isn't trying to dodge the thing like everyone else.
The shell that totally vapourised the guy's upper torso in Fury's tiger fight is only 88mm, so pretty much any hit is going to be fatal, realistically. But this depends A: How literally you treat hit points as injuries, and B: How legendarily heroic you assume high level D&D characters are.
>>44811268
>implying the base armor for the tank magically goes away along with reactive armor
it IS solid chunk of alloy. along with other variances of stuff, depending on the compsition of it's armor.
anyway my point is follow-up shots aren't nessisarily the answer. For instance, an Abrams got hit by like 20 RPG-7s(which are definitely more capable than grenades for Armor piercing) and moved away with no significant damage. I could search for the source if you need proof, but yeah, thanks are much, MUCH tougher than what average people expect.
>>44811268
I know what HEAT is and how it works anon. I wouldn't use the term HEAT if I didn't
A 20D6 fireball or firestorm would surely cause some large problems with an Abrams, especially if down the barrel or on the engine grille. Sustain the firestorm long enough and you'll cook the crew long before the tank takes any damage.
>>44811292
>your final boss: the US Third Army as it began Operation Desert Storm
>>44811334
Could work if the PCs were supervillains and their goal was to raise and army to take over the world or something like that.
>>44811331
So it would do nothing a HEAT round would, damage or otherwise, and you think you can maintain a firestorm for several minutes to heat the vehicle up enough to harm the crew.
>>44811315
uh.
>>44811292
this guy gets it. the reason why modern armies are goddamn powerful is due to networking and making thing be multiple times effective by the work of JOLLY COOPERATION.
>>44811331
>especially if down the barrel or on the engine grille
that's a bit unreliable, isn't it? although I agree on the cooking part.
>>44811334
is air support an enviromental hazard for the place you fight them?? this is important.
Vorpal weaponry, hell, even magic weapons would tear through an abrahms.
The magic is the thing that would be its downfall. Teleport the crew outside the tank. or even better: summon D3 wolves inside the tank.
>>44811362
>summon D3 wolves inside the tank.
would they even be able to fit inside a tank?
So it looks like, nothing the party will do is going to easily damage the tank.
So getting rid of its mobility and locking it down is how most folks would end up handling it.
>>44811360
>is air support an enviromental hazard for the place you fight them?? this is important.
It also makes me wonder, how much of a threat would giant eagles, griffons and dragons be to modern attack helicopters and jets?
>>44811136
Even multistage shaped charge weapons are extremely ineffective at breaching spaced ceramic and steel encased depleted uranium armor.
To breach the armor on a American M1 tank with any reliability takes the heaviest man-portable weapons. Multistage RPG rounds won't do it without a blind luck "golden BB" shot.
There is a reason the preferred AT weapons of the modern world are very high velocity long rod projectiles and guided missiles with warhead weights over 10 kilograms, things no human could possibility carry.
>>44811162
>>44811198
As other people have pointed out, hitting a grounded conductive object with electricity doesn't damage it. The charge would go over the surface of the tank and into ground without passing though any sensitive materials. A lightning strike would, at most, blow the breakers and fuses in the communication equipment.
>>44811320
For reference, the 8.8cm that did that has less than 1/10 the penetrative power of a 120mm DU penetrator.
>>44811373
It's full of people. You hide and wait until they get out, then kill them, or hide until it leaves. They can't live in there forever.
>>44811324
Yeah, I know. The actual armour plate isn't the main defensive mechanism of most modern tanks, though; it's primarily there to deal with attenuated penetrator jets or lower-velocity shrapnel that've come through reactive armour or composites. I'm aware that it's not nothing, but I was addressing the argument that having a hot enough fireball would be equivalent to the effect of tandem HEAT; HEAT uses that energy much more efficiently than a fireball.
Also you're aware that composite armour also rapidly degrades in effectiveness on the spot where it's hit, right?
>Ceramic tiles have a "multiple hit capability" problem in that they cannot sustain successive impacts without quickly losing much of their protective value.
>>44811373
yup. it's main strength is mobility, tough armor due to being made of metal, and powerful ranged weapons. attack them from above, slow them down, avoid ranged combat. basically force an urban environment or anything similar that causes that much obstruction, and hope that they don't have infantry support.
>>44811392
If only it was a Challenger 2, they could!
>>44811331
>especially if down the barrel
the barrel is literally designed to sustain huge temperatures
>>44811262
As a former Abrams crewman, the whole ethereal thing to get inside the tank would sooooooo not work. There's barely enough room for three normal sized people inside the turret and the driver's compartment in the hull is like a coffin.
>>44811375
minimal. modern missiles fly really goddamn far. radars are much more precise than you expect, and most missiles are mobile enough to catch targets flying over mach 4. unless you really prepared for it, they would get absolutely shredded. get an Aegis destroyer nearby, thing get even worse for them.
>>44811369
No, it could end up in some horrific star trek transporter accident-esque fusion of wolves and crew members.
>>44811373
Almost any magic spell is going to disrupt the tank crew. You dont need to harm the tank to render it useless.
>Charm the crew
>Fear the crew
>Enlarge the crew so they're stuck in place and cant use the controls
>Teleport the crew outside.
>Mass Harm the crew
Tanks can't deal with magic, the same way bodies cant deal with high explosive.
It would be down to who won initiative. 1 HE blast would kill most of the party if they were't prepared/buffed, and 1 good spell from the PC caster would incapacitate the tank crew.
>>44811390
To be honest I doubt you're going to have someone walking around in 200mm +5 armour, so really you're just left with someone being hit by 120mm of metal going at 1000m/s, which is a bad time for anyone.
>>44811281
10d12, actually. Enough to two-shot a level 20 fighter, and probably reduce anything that isn't a martial class into mush.
>>44811292
The way the Abrams is stated in D&D, and more importantly the way targeting works makes it as lethal as most of the more dangerous magical beasts in that setting: It can target single characters with far more precision than would be possible real-life due to the grid,
Not to mention that its completely sealed with NBC protection, so you can't moltov or otherwise drive the crew out into the open like you can an M60, and that's assuming the tank even /has/ a crew and isn't a golem, assuming D&D.
Stats:
>M1 Abrams (Main Battle Tank)
>Type: Vehicle
>Class: Main Battle Tank
>Size: Gargantuan
>HP: 100hp
>Occupants: 4
>Cargo: 425lb
>Armour: 30 (Equipment bonus +8)
>Defence: 14 (10 +8 Equimpment Bonus -4 Size)
>Strength: NONE
>Land Speed: 65kmph (7 Chase squares/350ft)
>Handling: +0 (-4 Size +4 Base)
>Initiative: -2 (-4 Size +2 Base)
>Special Abilities: Chobham Armour
>Reactive Armour
>Infrared vision 4 miles
>Stabilization Gear
>Targeting Bonus +4
>Radar 4 miles
>Exotic Abilities: NONE
>Defects: Noisy
>Road Vehicle
>Volatile
>Weaponry:
>Weapon-----/120 mm M256 smoothbore cannon/ 12.7 mm M2HB machine gun
>Damage-----/10d12---------------------------/ 4d12
>Critical------/20------------------------------/ 20
>Type--------/Ballistic------------------------ / Ballistic
>Rate of Fire--/Single--------------------------/Automatic
>Range-------/600ft---------------------------/ 150ft
>Qualities-----/Armor Penetrating 2, Extra Ammo/ Autofire
>Restrictions--/Crew Serve, Slow Firing---------/ Exposed
In the Arcanum RPG setting, magic and technology are at naturally opposite ends of each other, with the former causing magic to go awry and its effects to warp nature just "fizzle", and the latter causing problems like exploding equipment or your watch to go backwards.
In that specific setting, it would be pretty much impossible to take down a tank with magicunless you used something like the spell that stops something's [Time], at which point you could just go into the tank and pull the crew out before choosing what to do with them.
>>44811426
What if the dragon is fire and death?
>>44811402
>Also you're aware that composite armour also rapidly degrades in effectiveness on the spot where it's hit, right?
I think I missed that part. my apologies.
>I was addressing the argument that having a hot enough fireball would be equivalent to the effect of tandem HEAT; HEAT uses that energy much more efficiently than a fireball.
it's possible if they are powerful enough. I mean, back in WW2 the seemingly immortal panzers and tigers once got wiped out by fire support form naval units. brute force, if strong enough, would naturally work. also, the treads are suprisingly vulnerable to damage.
>>44811268
Multi-stage shaped charge weapons work like that, yeah.
It's to defeat the way tank armor these days is made up of a layer of armor, then a spacer (air gap or a bit of plastic or foam) then another layer of armor.
The liquid jet is really good at drilling though solid material, but when it gets into an open space it expands and tends to splatter all across the next layer, rather then remaining a concentrated jet.
By sending a second, concentrated jet down the hole the first one makes, you can try to cut though another layer of armor!..
The liquid jet has a lot of trouble cutting the very dense materials used and rather then make a smooth hole the ceramic tends to shatter into bits that disrupt the jet. This gives sort of absurd numbers when you look at RHA equivalents, as heavy shaped charges can penetrate a huge amount of RHA, but because modern composite armors can stop them you get 'equivalents' over 90cm for bits of a tank.
>>44811426
Depends what dragon hide is made out of and how well eagles show up on radar. Missiles aren't built to track dragons and eagles, either.
I mean the issue with those ones is they're literally fucking magic, whereas at least the effects of PHB spells are relatively well-defined.
Twilight 2000 it might.
but then again you could just.. wait for it to run out of fuel.
>>44811447
>>Weapon-----/120 mm M256 smoothbore cannon/ 12.7 mm M2HB machine gun
There's also a coaxial 7.62 M-240 as well as another m240 that the loader can hop on.
>>44811506
meant for
>>44811454
>>44811402
>Also you're aware that composite armour also rapidly degrades in effectiveness on the spot where it's hit, right?
Not really. Unless you literally hit the same square centimeter more then once there won't be any loss of strength from multiple hits. You can't 'wear down the hit points' on a M1 tank by shooting it with a bunch of RPG-7 single stage HEAT rounds.
>>44811465
>I think I missed that part. my apologies.
Hey, no worries. And cheers; rare to see that on /tg/.
>it's possible if they are powerful enough. I mean, back in WW2 the seemingly immortal panzers and tigers once got wiped out by fire support form naval units. brute force, if strong enough, would naturally work. also, the treads are suprisingly vulnerable to damage.
The issue with things that are highly explosive is overpressure and spalling; composite armours actually do relatively little to counter pure explosive force, though spall liners are pretty common on most vehicles these days. However, if a fireball is the equivalent of, say, a kiloton of TNT, the sheer impact force would likely pulp the crew and probably smash the armour out of it's bearings. On the other hand, if fireballs -did- have pressure waves, you'd expect effects like pushing, knockdown, etc, and you wouldn't be immune to it if you were immune to fire, since you'd also be getting slapped across the torso with the force of it.
I think fireballs are just means of flash-burning things.
>>44811523
The "spot where it's hit" is really tiny, yeah; hence why two-stage HEAT rounds are going to be more effective uses of force than flinging multiple fireballs at it.
Again, all this is irrelevant because your actual weapon is going to be turning the ground underneath it into quicksand, or possibly hitting it with disintegrate if it's classed as an object or construct instead of worn equipment.
>>44811470
easiest way to disable an abrams is to damage it's exposed radiator in the rear.
After that, you have to wait until the batteries are dead before the turret/main gun are ineffective (which can be a long time).
>>44811423
>As a former Abrams crewman
oh I need to ask you a question
I heard an Abrams once absorbed over 20 RPG-7 shots and got away, is this true?
>>44811460
how is it's hide like? how does it fly? how hot is it's fire?
>>44811468
>Missiles aren't built to track dragons and eagles, either
they can track baseball sized objects hundreds of kilometers away, no biggie. as long as you have a body you are detected.
>I mean the issue with those ones is they're literally fucking magic
this is why we need some kind of guideline. It's been like this even before the GATE threads, and it will go forever until someone steps up and lay some kind of groundwork to compare.
>>44811524
>if a fireball is the equivalent of, say, a kiloton of TNT,
it does like ?(6, maybe?)d4 damage, a hand grenade does ?(same number as the fireball)d3. not really powerful.
>>44811454
>blah blah statlines
jesus christ how horrifying.jpg
>>44811539
that seems to be the best answer even to parties withou modern equipment. or trapping it with random stuff jammed into it's tread and running away.
I also want to point out that this thread is suprisingly informative. I don't understand how this is possible.
>>44811524
Eh, fireball is too diffuse to really do much imo. Remember that as the level of a fireball goes up, so does the area it affects. Energy densities are surprisingly low for that spell.
Now, if you *really* want to use a fire spell to take out a tank, the best way is directed heat against the magazine. Cook off the rounds and you take out the TC, gunner, and loader (maybe the driver too, but he's really stuck in there).
>>44811539
The batteries wouldn't stop it. The turret can be traversed via hand-crank, as well as the main gun being elevation. The tank also has regular sighting and aiming abilities that don't rely on electronics. The rounds, while set of by electric charge, can also be fired manually. There's a hand crank tht builds up a small electric charge, enough to fire the gun.
Granted, it wouldn't be aiming nearly as quickly, and it would slow it down a ton, but it wouldn't stop it from firing or aiming.
>>44811380
>There is a reason the preferred AT weapons of the modern world are very high velocity long rod projectiles and guided missiles with warhead weights over 10 kilograms, things no human could possibility carry.
Mind you, on the other hand: The average Epic-tier character is normally handing down ass-whoopings to demigods and demon lords. So I'd give pretty good odds on being able to shatter tank armour.
That and stuff like Pyromancer Wizards being literally able to set Water on Fire and burn Fire Elementals (Everything Burns! was the best feat ever)
>>44811564
Probably. An RPG is meant to kill lightly armored vehicles like APCs or trucks. The only way an RPG would be able to kill a tank would be if it hit the tracks (which wouldn't have an effect on the crew, it would still be able to aim and shoot, just not move), or if it hit dead on the radiator grills, which would again, not stop it from shooting or aiming.
Plus, most RPGs in use are outdated soviet era equipment with an insanely high failure rate.
>>44811572
Yeah, this is true, but in terms of going against a few dismounted enemies, once the batteries are dead, the turret's dead. That's when you start figuring out how to unass that tank as quickly as possible.
>>44811591
>The only way an RPG would be able to kill a tank would be if it hit the tracks (which wouldn't have an effect on the crew, it would still be able to aim and shoot, just not move), or if it hit dead on the radiator grills, which would again, not stop it from shooting or aiming.
You know, it kinda annoys me how many games with any form of big nasty mechanical monster forget that Mission Kill exists.
I think Battletech is about the only thing to remember it (You get half the points for a legged mech or motive damaged vehicle even if it's still working)
>>44811567
>directed heat against the magazine
that's honestly not worth the effort, might as well find an alternate that is easier than that.
>>44811577
if any case one thing we need to know is that people are not putting things to 'normal' enviroments. 'normally', fantasy adventurers move in parties. 'normally', modern armies move tonks along with mechanized infantry, and a mix of artillery and air support.
>>44811591
I also heard that chinese copies have no self-destruct mechanisms, and someone making a suggestion to use them as improvised mass infantry-aritillery. which is dumb, I know, but the imagery is what makes it memorable.
>>44811606
mostly because it slows down the game's pace. Wargame the wargame series do, however.
>>44811564
Fireballs have been Xd6 since 3rd edition. Also HP=/=TNT equivalent.
Honestly you're right though since fireball can be anything from "a less effective hand grenade that can't even knock anyone over" to "a maelstrom of fire that'll cook the crew alive" depending on who's talking.
>>44811564
>I heard an Abrams once absorbed over 20 RPG-7 shots and got away, is this true?
I've been in a hmmv that was hit with an rpg and got away. Shitty russian weapons are shitty.
I know in Clancy's book about tanks he talks about an Abrams that took something a bunch of main gun hits from six t-62s while it was not able to move (popped treads, iirc), and it managed to kill them all.
>>44811567
>directed heat against the magazine
Can you target inside of something like that?
Also applies to all the "do X to the crew", as long as the hatch is shut - though I guess that'd be easier, if you're just "aiming" at the minds in the tank
>>44811630
You're always talking about monkey versions of the equipment, though. Actual soviet stuff was of higher quality and used better ammunition, and also wasn't being maintained by morons whose military was set up to terrorise civillians and nothing else.
Ammo alone is a huge factor in how effective a tank is, shells from WW2 to Korea alone gained about 30mm of penetration and larger explosive charges. If you're firing practise rounds (which some middle eastern tanks were!) you're going to be doing fuck all.
>>44811641
You don't have to target inside. It's the rearmost part of the turret. There's actually surprisingly little armor on it too.
>>44811618
>if any case one thing we need to know is that people are not putting things to 'normal' enviroments. 'normally', fantasy adventurers move in parties. 'normally', modern armies move tonks along with mechanized infantry, and a mix of artillery and air support.
There is that.
There is also: 'Even if this IS D&D...what edition?'
Like I used 4e, where a high level party has a guy who can literally steal the colour from your eyes and a tendency to get right the fuck back up after they die because they beat the grim reaper until he ran like a bitch.
On the other hand...5e? Those guys would die like little bitches. It's just not the same scale.
3e...oh gods and demons. I don't want to try and ponder where various 3e characters would fall on that scale beyond 'Wizard could do something bullshit, non-spellcasters would sit in the corner and cry'
There is just too many variables to really work out anything.
I will say: Fighting a tank would be bloody badass for a boss fight though.
>>44811649
Also you're comparing the huge glut of manpower and resources behind the US-lead coalition invading various middle eastern nations, compared to the weak infrastructure of those countries. Compare that to the fulda gap, where you're looking at T-64s, T-72s and T-80s that're roughly equivalent to the M1 Abrams of the time and are massively superior to the M60s, and -also- outnumber them by some stupid margin like 4-1.
>>44811619
yeah, if anything making a modern main tank a boss should be done to high-epic level campaign, not low. because tonks don't travel alone, and most players are to dumb to know 'running away' is a thing in low-level campaigns.
>>44811630
>entire post
are russian stuff really that bad? jesus christ.
>>44811663
>There is also: 'Even if this IS D&D...what edition?'
this is where OP fucked up.
>There is just too many variables to really work out anything.
exactly. only if OP specified some things. but OP is a faggot as always.
>I will say: Fighting a tank would be bloody badass for a boss fight though.
I will say: taking on a battalion with armor, artillery, air, and naval support would be hella awsome. maybe epic level party attemting to hold off modern naval beach landing until help arrives?
>>44811698
>are russian stuff really that bad? jesus christ.
See above. Soviet stuff was usually much higher quality than the stuff that's being used in middle eastern insurgencies today. Soviets even had the term "monkey model" for the downrated export versions.
Partly this was because lol nonsoviet countries, but it was also because if their top-tier stuff -was- getting spread all around the middle east and asia where the US could intervene and capture it then their latest and best would be under the microscope.
>>44811698
That would be pretty damn fun.
I'd honestly put most infantry as Minions compared to epic people. Even guns don't quite even the odds that much. It just makes them bigger, nastier minions. Epic Sword gunna put you in the ground in one hit.
Vehicles? Now those things would be fun to face down with.
A Tank Commander acting as a Leader for various aircraft and armour. An Invoker's Angels dancing with fighter jets or a Shielding Swordmage blunting the blast of a naval cannon.
>>44811698
>are russian stuff really that bad? jesus christ.
It's luck of the draw. Sometimes it works as advertised, other times, not so much. They have shit manufacturing compared to the west. For the most part, their stuff is designed with this in mind, but even with that, failure rates on things like RPGs is ridiculously high.
>>44811728
slavaboo gonna boo-a-slav
>>44811663
>3e...oh gods and demons. I don't want to try and ponder where various 3e characters would fall on that scale beyond 'Wizard could do something bullshit, non-spellcasters would sit in the corner and cry'
Idk, +5 weapons should be able to cut through steel and a brilliant energy bow or projectiles could easily kill the crewman inside
>>44811754
Too bad we're not talking about steel armor.
>>44811079
Yes, but only if the campaign is a political intrigue in a low-tech setting.
>>44811079
Would Big Wind make a good evil lieutenant?
>>44811791
The fuck? How does that even come close to making sense?
>be playing through something like the movie Ronin
>all of a sudden TANK
>>44811791
>party manages to secure a marriage between the duchess and the party leader
>this will secure peace in the realm
>as the duchess begins to walk up the isle the wall behind her is suddenly reduced to rubble and an M1 crashes in, splattering her
>the antagonist's head pops out the cupola and he winks at the party
>>44811698
>are russian stuff really that bad? jesus christ.
It's a combination of really old, outdated and badly kept monkey models. And used by Arabs, who are completely retarded no matter what you give them.
>>44811818
Whats he even shooting at?
>>44811830
djinn
>>44811135
>high-level martials
even if it is tougher and harder then steel you need the muscle force to cut the fuckign steel apart.
I doubt it would be possible.
Alright, the tank discussion is slowing down so what about some other vehicles?
How would these do, respectively.
A modern IFV (with main cannon, coaxial LMG and some missiles of your choosing).
A modern self-propelled AA (with plenty of ammo).
And a modern self-propelled artillery sytem.
Adjust the distances they start from as you see fit.
>>44811079
>>44811807
They could have some of these as evil minions.
>>44811564
>I also want to point out that this thread is suprisingly informative. I don't understand how this is possible.
Generally, the more specific a thread is the more autistic the posters are.
>>44811136
I bet you've probably never been in a fight before, your uncanny ignorance to the real world, it's beautiful.
Don't keep the dreamers outa here with hard facts /tg/, they are the breath of fresh air in a room that smells of stale doritos.
>>44811160
>Magic
Magic is gay and tank would be completely immune to it.
Anything else?
>>44811867
You know, thinking about it...those WWII AA vehicles like Flakpanzers would be pretty damn awesome in a 4e game.
You could lay down zones of withering automatic fire so anyone passing through (Or starting a turn in one) takes automatic damage.
Or bring out Flame tanks to lay down more walls and ongoing fire damage.
>>44811079
Tanks have a big psychological impact that most RPGs don't simulate. In WHFB terms they should cause Terror to your standard medieval fantasy troops.
>>44811079
Hell yeah! Watch "Kelly's Heros", that would be a cool setting!
>>44811904
Not heroes, though.
>>44811867
it'd be more fun to think about a fantasy party against a drone.
>>44811899
>Flame tanks
Depending how well people prepare for wizards, they might be less effective.
On the other hand, BURN EVERYTHING
>>44811857
If you can cut an adamantium golem, you can cut steel.
>>44811899
Any specific reason for WW II models?
I posted a modern one.
>>44811923
What kind of drone?
>>44811736
exactly. people really need to think on a bigger level. sure, encounter a straggler tank in a battlefield, but this should be a event for the 'batte in a city/combat zone/landing site/etc. harder encounters could be stumbling head on to an armored infantry division or a tank battalion. or being exposed to a nearby corvettes. that is laying down air to ground missiles and cannon fire. the final boss could be the aegis destroyer, it's CIWS and main gun blasting away from the shoreline and shooting down fireballs, and crews firing mounted machineguns to hold off the overpowered adventures coming toward them, while crusing away to gain time, 45 degrees, full thrust.
>>44811904
this too.
>>44811743
>documented facts
>"slavaboo lol"
>>44811759
Tanks also aren't optimised to take sword strikes, and the swords are magic, so... Who the fuck knows. There needs to be a standard, otherwise it just depends on whether you're a military fanboy or dragon fanboy.
>>44811923
>drone
like the reapers? or ground based drones?
>>44811743
I mean you're welcome to meme all you like, but you're disagreeing with the CIA's own reports.
>>44811969
>There needs to be a standard
I seriously wish one day some autistic genius would suddenly pop out and stat everything in accordance to real live, taking account of everything, so that we can compare and set setting, or calculate actual stats from other settings' things.
one fun thing that could happen could be a 'hell run' type of scenario where you have to run away from angry squadrons of A-10s(muh Brrrrrrts and Mavericks) or SU-25s(ROKKITS). if you are too slow to reach the mall, you're dead meat.
>>44811969
>otherwise it just depends on whether you're a military fanboy or dragon fanboy.
actually this. 99% of arguments in this thread are "you see this scary thing? Yeah, this scary thing will fuck you up".
It's like two kids with sword of all-killing, shield of all-protection, sword of all-killing-that-bypasses-protection and so on and so forth.
>>44811952
>Any specific reason for WW II models?
>I posted a modern one.
Mostly because about half way through I went 'Man, flame tanks would be cool too but I don't think any modern ones exist...'
>>44811993
http://www.foia.cia.gov/sites/default/files/document_conversions/89801/DOC_0001066239.pdf
>In the arms likely to dominate the outcome of a future battle for Central Europe - armoured vehicles and counterweapons - the US Army, then, probably will remain quantitatively and qualitively inferior.
Jesus christ.
>>44812016
It's kind of weird for me because I both like geeking out over tanks, and also think dragons are awesome.
>>44812022
Are they saying yanks make worse weapons or am I reading that wrong?
>>44811958
Oddly enough: I wouldn't stat it as an enemy. I'd stat it as a group of enemies. A battery of VLS makes for a great Artillery class enemy while the Phalanx CIWS could work really well as a psudo-defender (Going for crew or other cannons? Gunna eat lead).
With the PCs fighting near the ship or even on the deck if they can reach it.
With some acceptable breaks from reality for how close the VLS can blast away at people.
>>44812033
They're saying that at the time the report was published, yank weapons were both technically inferior to soviet ones and less numerous. Of course, it's a report that calls the M1 the XM1; the Abrams, when it was introduced, was as good or maybe a bit better than soviet tanks of the era (but remember the first ones had 105mm guns, not the 120 that's now standard). But the US never had numeric advantage over the soviets and for a long time also held a significant disadvantage in ground forces materiel.
>>44812016
yup. before 2015, gate threads, crossovers, ect.
any material we find is gonna devolve into this kind of arguement unless
1. the setting are set with precision allowing no room for excuse. like saying 'in 5e', or 'in WHFB', or anything, and with 'ww2 era', 'cold war era', 'modern era' and such.
2. basically what >>44811994 said. it is likely to never happen.
>>44812031
why put them in opposite sides? I once worldbuilded about a setting where fantasyland and modern world manage to ally up, albeit shaky, and have assault droship with minotaur fire support and wyvern anti-infanty squadrons with wyvern carrier task group, Dragons WITH nukes, etc.
>>44812021
I just googled it. Yeah, there don't seem to be any, what a shame.I'm a sucker for high RoF weapons though. I fucking love AA guns, the A-10, CIWS and similar. I love the BRRRRRRRRT. This is my current favorite: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyWX-ttsxCs
A delicious 35mm revolver cannon.
>>44812056
Though it also notes that the introduction of the Abrams might not mean much if soviet antitank tech continued to improve, which it did up until the end of the cold war (like going from Sagger to Spandrel).
>>44812067
I'd honestly like to see that.
>Evil Overlord with armies of golems and undead etc is seeming undefeatable
>Good nation casts a great spell to call for aid from a far off land.
>Portal opens and...I dunno. A company of SARS with ASLAV support are pulled through.
>Neither magic nor technology has all the answers (An ASLAV will tear apart a golem in a fair fight but there is little it can do against a Wraith) so they have to work together to win.
Rather than 'Yep, I'm just gunna sit here sucking military dick about how they could TOTALLY defeat all these fictional things with no problems at all!' (Salvation War/Gate).
>>44812055
>>44812055
>Oddly enough: I wouldn't stat it as an enemy(...)
huh. didn't think of that, but that might work. but the hull intergrity of the destroyer should be it's health point if they engage it from afar. since it wouldn't be that distinguishable from that range. also CIWS shooting down fireballs sound so cool.
>With the PCs fighting near the ship or even on the deck if they can reach it.
that's gonna make it hard for the VLS and the CIWS to handle them, is it.
>>44812095
>spoiler
high-fire rate is the best. along with high evasion, missile, precision fire, and regenerating shields.
>>44812133
In fairness the military couldn't have just annihilated everyone without magic people to open up portals in salvation war.
>>44812133
there is actually a japanese web story for that. A WW2 era america, but they kick ass regardless. it's named 'when the spangled star waves'. intrested? if any the only downside is a single passage containing nationalistic views, but it's only just that in like few hundred k words.
>>44812133
Sounds like a fun concept to explore actually.
>Ok, so what can you do with these metal devices?
>No, what can YOU do with these wooden sticks and runes and shit?
>Woah
>Woah
>>44812160
I love terrible jap web novels, link me that shit.
>>44812095
Likely due to 'Warcrime' reasons.
A pity. All my favorite things military-wise are war crimes. Oh well, that's what the Capellan Confederation is for!
>>44812141
>but the hull intergrity of the destroyer should be it's health point if they engage it from afar. since it wouldn't be that distinguishable from that range. also CIWS shooting down fireballs sound so cool.
I'd have damage done before the 'Up close' part of the battle be spread evenly between the various 'enemies' so that they've done something but likely havn't destroyed any
>that's gonna make it hard for the VLS and the CIWS to handle them, is it.
Yeah, that's where 'Acceptable breaks from reality' would come in. It's not perfectly accurate but then, I'm not sure any part of that encounter is quite working on '100% how reality says it should work'.
I was pondering the up close thing because you'd want to make melee characters that are not swordmages feel useful. I'll admit: I'm pondering this largely as 'An encounter' rather than 'An accurate depiction of what the ship could do'. Like how I'd have a tank commander doing full on Warlord stuff to other tanks.
>>44812159
In less fairness: The Demons and Angels are still really, really stupid.
>>44812133
>>44812175
here's the link for >>44812160
http://www26.atwiki.jp/jfsdf/pages/708.html
beware, it's untranslated. there's a korean translation, but no english. google translator sucks ass, and I really need someone to hel me understand japanese.
>>44812173
kek.
also look at this one too.
>>44811969
>implying most of the arms used in afghanistan/middle east are soviet era
I don't even know why anyone would begin to think something as retarded as this. Africa is the blackhole that swallowed soviet era shit. Current armament is, by far, modern.
>tanks aren't optimized to take sword strkes
Do you think swords obey some kind of crazy different physics than do other kinds of rounds? I mean yeah, you do have some point with the magic side, but you're seriously stupid if you think a tank's armor has some kind of hinderance to stopping a sword.
>>44811993
>citing outdated as fuck CIA reports
If you want, I can pull up some leading medical journal reports calling Joseph Lister an idiot.
>also, thinking the M1 was ever "just slightly better" than any Russian tank.
Pure slavaboo nonsense. The M1 was on the top of the heap for quite a while, by a wide margin. It's still top fourish for main battle tanks. The only advantage the soviets had over the M1 were numbers. Having a few hundred shitty antitank weapons per tank to kill does count for something, but pretending that it's anything more than sheer numerical superiority is foolish and ignorant.
>>44811446
>It would be down to who won initiative
Huh, not too far from a regular tank duel then.
>>44811680
Something tells me you'd like Team Yankee.
>>44812185
>In less fairness: The Demons and Angels are still really, really stupid.
Well they are thousands of years behind people.
>>44812173
>So I'm voting that we forever replace sidearms with wands? They fire for our purposes limitless shots with a lower weight and superior accuracy
Honestly, I think a modern military would be utterly wowed less by combat uses of magic and more 'As long as this guy isn't dead, we can have him as healthy as the day he finished basic training in a day, tops'.
That and motherfucking Handy Haversacks. I've never been military but I was in the Scouts long enough to realize that a light backpack that carries as much as the back of a jeep without ever getting heavier would be the most amazing thing ever. The sheer logistical help that would be is amazing.
>>44812185
>eah, that's where 'Acceptable breaks from reality' would come in.
perhaps being exposed to too much magic bullshittery made it possible to pull off stuff that's supposed to be normally impossible?
>I'll admit: I'm pondering this largely as 'An encounter' rather than 'An accurate depiction of what the ship could do'. Like how I'd have a tank commander doing full on Warlord stuff to other tanks.
I agree, but as I said in
>>44812201
then again, most modern combat is the same as well.
where's that image saying 'modern combat is dominated by ranged faggots' I need it now.
>>44812206
setting like this want me to think about team and battlegroup compositions I could make if they were allies. I mean, I might have played too much wargame or xcom, but just imagine the tactical varieties you could get from united armies between heaven, fantasy, modern, and hell.
>>44812224
if anything both side will get EXTREME boost to their logistics. and as any intelligent /k/ knows, tactics<strategy<logistics.
>>44812224
>superior accuracy
I doubt that.
I agree with the rest though. Imagine military vehicles designed without having to worry about ammo/fuel and other storage.Absolutely horrifying.
>>44812188
>I don't even know why anyone would begin to think something as retarded as this. Africa is the blackhole that swallowed soviet era shit. Current armament is, by far, modern.
Modern weapons such as the ones penetrating modern tanks? You've got a mix of old shitty stuff used by idiots and small amounts of stuff that's done damage. It's still a tank versus insurgents, but modern era stuff is effective.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1551418/MoD-kept-failure-of-best-tank-quiet.html
>Do you think swords obey some kind of crazy different physics than do other kinds of rounds? I mean yeah, you do have some point with the magic side, but you're seriously stupid if you think a tank's armor has some kind of hinderance to stopping a sword.
Tank armour is optimised to be struck by sabot and HEAT rounds, because these are the effective rounds. Against a sword, it's not optimised, which isn't an issue in reality because nobody's trying to stab an abrams and would be an idiot if they did. If hercules or zeus tried to stab an abrams, then there's no countermeasure for crushing force like that. But, then, it's also zeus stabbing an abrams, so again, who the fuck knows.
>>44812264
you still have to worry about maitnance however.unless the tank is a golem. as well as that missile destroyer, and that A-10.
>>44812188
>If you want, I can pull up some leading medical journal reports calling Joseph Lister an idiot.
You're free to do whatever you want, but that doesn't really change that the USA was aware it's tanks were inferior to soviet ones, and even the at-the-time experimental models could be countered by antitank weapons being introduced.
>Pure slavaboo nonsense. The M1 was on the top of the heap for quite a while, by a wide margin. It's still top fourish for main battle tanks. The only advantage the soviets had over the M1 were numbers. Having a few hundred shitty antitank weapons per tank to kill does count for something, but pretending that it's anything more than sheer numerical superiority is foolish and ignorant.
The M1 at the time of it's introduction had a less powerful gun by some margin, and was penetrable by soviet antitank weapons. It was undoubtedly faster and more surviveable, and represented several steps of advanced tech like thermals and all-axis stabilisation that soviet vehicles lacked, but it was not, by any means, a supertank that would've trundled along, impervious to all. And even if it was, that wasn't the tank in main use at the time; that was the M60A3, which was totally inferior to soviet tanks in every respect.
>>44812248
They did eventually set up groups of demons and humans. The demons came in from the front with heavy weapons because they got it in their heads that that would get them greater honours, while humans supported and flanked.
Or something its been a while since I read it.
>>44812248
>setting like this want me to think about team and battlegroup compositions I could make if they were allies. I mean, I might have played too much wargame or xcom, but just imagine the tactical varieties you could get from united armies between heaven, fantasy, modern, and hell.
Did you read the second one?
For a good while after Hell got roflstomped no-one was able to get into Heaven, though they occasionally would throw things at Earth - the bowls from Revelations, mostly. In the time while earth was waiting for a route to Heaven some demonic units were formed using human technology.
>>44812264
>I doubt that.
I'll admit: I was pondering mostly Magic Missile for the wands. Which is where the accuracy game into play. Other spells are more variable.
>>44812291
Now I'm pondering Artificers. With the host of 'Repair/Enhance equipment' powers they have. Every Artificer on the planet would get a sudden boner at modern military tech and know exactly why.
>>44812269
>Tank armour is optimised to be struck by sabot and HEAT rounds, because these are the effective rounds. Against a sword, it's not optimised, which isn't an issue in reality because nobody's trying to stab an abrams and would be an idiot if they did. If hercules or zeus tried to stab an abrams, then there's no countermeasure for crushing force like that. But, then, it's also zeus stabbing an abrams, so again, who the fuck knows.
How do you think directed attacks against armor work? Seriously, I'm curious what mechanism you think is in place in a sword strike that's not present in say a sabot strike?
>>44811123
>Muh undeadable m1
>>44812269
Abrams doesn't fare much better, 5 full penetrated by modern ATGMs in Iraq, and ones operated by the Iraqi army have taken heavy losses from modern RPGs fighting ISIL.
>inb4 "Yeah, but racism makes the armour thinner when muslims use it".
>>44811123
Don't be redicilus you wouldn't even need magic just have your fighter jump on top of the tank and rip into the hull bit by bit
It will probably only take about 2 to 10 minutes depending on how over the top fighters can get in your game.
>>44812291
You just make everything modular and easy to swap out (like the modular power block/engine system the germans use) then have a bunch of these modules stored in the plane of engine modules. You just throw the old one away, put in a new one and you're good to go.
>>44811857
Who cares its fantasy why the fuck can't the fighter do awesome arse shit
>>44812336
>>inb4 "Yeah, but racism makes the armour thinner when muslims use it".
It makes magic soviet weapons not work, so why should western technology not be susceptible to it.
>>44812317
Same sort of thing that happens with bulletproof armour versus stab vests, for a super basic example?
Ceramic armour (such as chally and abrams) shatters from the huge forces at moment of impact, abrading long-rod penetrators, while the rubber layer applies transverse force, putting it an angle and potentially even snapping the rod due to the high forces. The net effect is you don't have a single penetrator hitting the steel layers; you have a broken up set of tumbling shards impacting the armour at low velocity and expanded area at odd angles.
That's not really going to happen with a sword, because a sword is a continuous slicing motion, receiving energy the entire time and keeping it directed. Again, to be abundantly clear, you can't stab an abrams IRL. But a theoretical superbeing who could would not be taking ceramic armour at it's strongest points, like sabot and HEAT do.
>>44812373
Presumably because he wasnt able to do something comparable in universe before the tank appeared.
Unless he could of course then its fine.
>>44812375
Is the export abrams explicitly less well armoured than the internal model, as is known to be the case with soviet weapons?
>>44812269
To be fair, in that article the failure of armour wasn't the loss of life, it was the loss of part of a foot, and other minor injuries to the crew.
Not a total loss or anything close, and the main issue was that it wasn't released to the general public for a few months.
And the tank was subsequently given an up-armour kit for the bit that was hit, for operating in urban environments (heavy as fuck though)
>>44812347
>the plane of engine modules
Planes and portals could do so much shit for logistics it's unreal.
>>44812410
You mean tearing though metal
Why wouldn't they be able to
Fuck o say this as a god dam 3e player
>>44812410
Stabbing through very, very thick dragon hide?
>>44812415
Yeah; I'm aware. I was just trying to argue against the "immortal NATO tanks, rolling through the plains of fulda, impervious to all" myth. In an actual warfare scenario, where tanks are going to keep being shot at with no superiority of manpower and materiel on-call to deal with build ups, that's gone from being "a nasty fuckup" to a capture or kill.
>>44812373
Come on, anon, take this sword and try to stab through a tank.
Oh you can't do this? Tough luck.
>>44812294
>You're free to do whatever you want, but that doesn't really change that the USA was aware it's tanks were inferior to soviet ones, and even the at-the-time experimental models could be countered by antitank weapons being introduced.
There has literally never been a time in the history of tank warfare that any tank has been immune to destruction by antitank weapons.
>The M1 at the time of it's introduction had a less powerful gun by some margin, and was penetrable by soviet antitank weapons. It was undoubtedly faster and more surviveable, and represented several steps of advanced tech like thermals and all-axis stabilisation that soviet vehicles lacked, but it was not, by any means, a supertank that would've trundled along, impervious to all. And even if it was, that wasn't the tank in main use at the time; that was the M60A3, which was totally inferior to soviet tanks in every respect.
Make up your mind. Are we talking about the introductory model or are we talking about later variants where absolutely nothing you're saying is true. Here's a fun fact, we've gone well past 1986.
>>44812437
*I say fhis
>>44812437
There is a difference in the metal you would find a man wearing and the metal you find on a tank.
>>44812447
>"immortal NATO tanks, rolling through the plains of fulda, impervious to all"
>That's it. I'm sick of all this "Large Armored Vehicle" bullshit that's going on in the d20 system right now. Tanks deserve much better than that. Much, much better than that.
>>44812461
Fuck this I can't type this tired night /tg/
>>44812485
night, anon.
>>44812445
Depends on the dragon I guess.
>>44812459
The person who needs to make up his mind is the one who's been saying the Abrams was impenetrable, then completely 180s to "actually tanks have always been penetrable by anything".
Either we're comparing a scenario where soviet and NATO tanks would've actually fought, or we're just wanking about nationalism and classified statistics. Personally, I prefer to wank over hot drow, but to each their own.
>>44811698
>are russian stuff really that bad? jesus christ.
Keep in mind that the RPG-7 was introduced in 1961, the same year as the M60 Patton.
>>44812484
>>44812475
Sure but you can still break though them eventually tanks don't have any regen
>>44812516
Wait, we're doing military wanking?
>>44812556
S-source
>>44812447
Fair enough, there's certainly no such thing as an immortal tank.
>>44812556
Hey, hey, let's not go ahead of ourselves. Nothing good will come from being hotheaded. I say one or two images per capita would do.
>>44812571
I suspect Upotte! but not 100% sure
>>44811524
>a kiloton of TNT
Holy goddamn that's a strong fireball.
Is there any game system that has a usable lbs/tons TNT to damage conversion system? I can see that being very useful in realistic war or mecha games.
>>44812516
Show me where I ever claimed the M1 was impervious to anything. Pure fucking slavaboo bullshit. You're goddamn arguing against something in your head.
>>44812447
At no point has anyone said shit about "immortal NATO tanks"
>>44812414
Fuck me, the USSR still exists?
>>44812399
And you seem to think that the ceramic is the only armor that exists...ignoring that whole depleted uranium core.
But, aside from that, you use words you have no clue what they actually mean.
>>44812571
Actually I think I'm just gonna blueball everyone with more chicks with guns.
>>44812549
I dont know. If your guy could break through a portcullis or something maybe. Otherwise I'd say he would probably just be stuck there.
>>44812604
oh god, people in >>44812320 actually exist.
>>44812608
>>44812320
>>44812608
>not posting best jew
>>44811446
Most of these require you to see them first.
>>44812642
It's not Upotte! :^)
>>44812638
>>44812320
>That comic
>>44811577
>Mind you, on the other hand: The average Epic-tier character is normally handing down ass-whoopings to demigods and demon lords. So I'd give pretty good odds on being able to shatter tank armour.
Depends on what the RHA equivalent of mithirl/adamantine/demonflesh is.
Imagine a guy walking around wearing steel armor that's around 2+ feet thick.
>>44812654
>It's not Upotte! :^)
And that's terrible
>Animoo Galil having four ears
Wait, i take it back, THAT'S terrible.
>>44812643
You know, it occurs to me. I've never played in an RPG with an ability to see through walls, or in this case, tanks.
>>44812621
You called out the wrong side there mate.
>>44812700
In SR you can radar/see through the walls, but all magic requires direct eye contact (except binoculars and mirrors are fine too for some weird reason).
>>44812320
Amazingly predicted the entire thread.
>>44812690
Isn't the one on the right the rape-elf?
>>44811658
>You don't have to target inside. It's the rearmost part of the turret. There's actually surprisingly little armor on it too.
But it's also specially designed to explod outward, sacrificing the ammunition in order to save the crew. In an Abrams, it very very rarely results in crew loss. A "mission kill" at most.
And the thing still has machineguns.
>>44812314
I might read up this story later, you got me intrested. What's the title? Salvation war?
>>44812415
Exactly. The amount of logistical bullshit fantasy can throw at us makes me excited.
...wait, where is this thread going?
>>44812740
But anonit's not rape if it's an elf
Tank stats don't matter anyway. The meaningful thing is how you're using them.
Let's all take another moment to appreciate tits.
>>44812768
>...wait, where is this thread going?
You don't want to know.
Or maybe you do.
Yeah, it's called Salvation War, part 1 is Armageddon??? (question marks included), part 2 is Pantheonocide I think.
If you can't find it the tvtropes page has links
>>44812788
But we need the stats if we want to fight it, anon. How are able to fight when we don't have stats for the opponents?
>>44812840
Thanks anon. I appreciate it.
>>44812788
Hang on a minute. What if we gave tanks tits? It would be the best of both worlds!
>>44812399
It'd be about like stabbing a metal plate compared to shooting it. Unless you have enough power behind either one to get through, you aren't doing much of anything either way.
>>44812894
Yeah, but I figure we're discussing, like, hercules stabbing a tank. Joe Peasant stabbing a tank is obviously going to do nothing.
>>44812873
How about bombers with tits?
>>44812921
Wither way, we're talking something that would take literal god-like strength, not demi-god strength, to get through either one unless he plans to hack away at it for weeks.
>>44812922
Needs heavier ordinance.
Let's settle the milhist wank, post T-72ko and M1ko and see who has the best ammo rack.
>>44812947
Considering Hercules changed the flow of a river with 'Merely' demi-god strength I'd say that's plenty.
>>44812947
I mean, maybe, but "It would take fictional arbitrary thing strength, not slightly less fictional arbitrary thing strength" is probably the height of pointless exceptions to make. I have no idea how strong Zeus or Hercules are, they're fictional.
>>44812947
>we're talking something that would take literal god-like strength, not demi-god strength, to get through
More like level 8-10 in D&D.For casters, level 3-6
>>44812967
To punch through it, but I sincerely doubt he'd be able to stab a sword through a tank's armor. Depleted uranium rounds shatter on this shit. You really expect a sword to hold up?
>>44812997
Who the fuck knows? They're magic! Why is this an argument, jesus christ.
>>44813008
None of hercs swords were magic.
>>44812997
If we're talking about hardline low-level fantasy with medieval-level technology, yes.
If we're talking about even slightly heroic fantasy, though...
>>44812947
If you are Hercules then you pick up the tank and throw it very far away, you don't try to jab it with a sword.
>>44813008
>Who the fuck knows? They're magic!
Why are you even in this thread?
All you've done through the course of it is proclaim how you don't know x or y because magic.
>>44813043
Its well known that tanks are mooks in anime.
>>44813076
All anyone else is doing is going "Tank wins, because physics", versus "Dragons win, because magic".
>>44811079
Assuming the archetypal part (fighter, rogue, cleric, wizard) at about lvl. 15 or so in 5e it would be a good boss within reason.
It'd still suffer from the typical problem of getting mobbed though. And a well organised party of such a layout should probably be able to take it out, with the wizard and cleric combined being able to render it immobile and blind and thus allowing the fighter and rogue to get up close and take out the crew inside.
So good mini-boss, it'd require some thinking and it'd be an interesting encounter. On the other hand, you'd then need a way to justify your party not being able to take it thereafter or find a way to balance out the power that it gives them.
>>44813162
So you're a shitposter who is shitposting because...
I'm still not seeing a reason. If you don't like a discussion pitting real world things against fake things, then again, why are you even in this thread?
Look, either add to the discussion or fuck off.
>>44813178
>your party not being able to take it thereafter
Do you know how to drive a tank?
Consider that the party is unlikely to be able to drive any vehicle, let alone a tank, and you should be fine
>>44813236
they're easy to figure out if already running..the easy answer is FUEL.
>>44813236
If tanks exist in the setting, an argument could be made that they're ''land vehicles'' and considering theres a proficiency for that such things in 5e the fighter or cleric might have the necessary proficiency.
Now, if you decide to make the tank ''exotic'' then yer good as long as no-one takes the tank specific one but you do need to specify as such and possibly put yer foot down when the party starts to whine.
This is especially an issue in my setting since the gnomes have pseudo-tanks designed to fight Giants and I know my party are gonna want one at some point so they'll probably take the proficiency specifically for that purpose.
>>44813236
Easy enough to figure out if you know how to drive any vehicle. Sure you'd fuck up at first but it's not like they're designed to be unintuitive, the opposite actually.
Someone that has absolutely no prior experience with driving things would probably struggle quite a bit though.
>>44813220
"But swords will break" is a dumb argument. Define your implied material quality.
>>44813331
Honestly, why would it be a problem? One of the most awesome things about D&D, for me, has always been players coming into possession of powerful items and assets and then using them to impact the setting, thereby also changing the nature of the game. If the tank is even near to unique, you can be sure as fuck that people are going to want to steal it, for example.
Of course, this is only for games that are mostly sandbox.
>>44813342
>Easy enough to figure out if you know how to drive any vehicle. Sure you'd fuck up at first but it's not like they're designed to be unintuitive, the opposite actually.
>Someone that has absolutely no prior experience with driving things would probably struggle quite a bit though.
Depends on which tank you're talking about, but it's not quite that simple. Because of shit like neutral steering, someone who doesn't know what they're doing can fuck some shit up.
The biggest deal with them is shut down. You can fuck one up big time by not shutting it down in the right order.
Outside of that, there's maintenance to consider. Every hour of operation requires around four hours of maintenance.
>>44813364
You're a literal moron. No wonder you think the arguments have just been "because physics" or "because magic", you've not bothered to read the thread.
So yeah, fuck off.
>>44813436
>Define your implied material quality.
>>44813370
Its a problem if your end game was meant to be a battle against a Balor, for example.
Your cleric could potentially drive it, becoming a near invincible healing bunker that moves, if supported right, while the rogue operates the gun and the fighter and wizard use it as a steed. Its not gamebreaking, it just increases the relevant ''power level'' of the campaign, which one has to account for.
Either one boosts the powerlevel of the enemies to retain a worthwhile challenge, one prevents the players getting it or one accepts that they've potentially made defeating your end-boss piss-easy.
>>44813463
>repeating idiocy that shows you've not read the thread
>>44811079
>players encounter tank
>you railroad them into confrontation rather than just walking around it
>they elect to sneak up on it from behind and sit around the top hatch
>starve out crew
>massacre them when they surrender
Tanks are great... if they have supporting infantry
>>44813498
Okay then, specify which kind of setting you mean, low or high fantasy.
>>44811123
>No, in fantasy world it would be completely invulnerable. Nothing would even scratch its armor.
Lets go phoenix command is a realistic rpg made by guy that works for nasa and with ballistics
He tried to make the game more compatible with other rpgs, with stats that go from 3 to 8 (and if rolled at random are rolled with a 3d6) with skills Levels that goes from 0 to 20...
light crowssbow deal 1d6 on 3.5
on phoenix command light crossbow has a DC 0.6, when the guy that you hit is 80 yards from you
PS: DC value is used with penetration and body part to find damage
Lets assume that when converting to d&d a weapon DC:
D&D damage - 1d6 + 2
There is also penetration that at this range is 0.6
So the convertion is D&D damage - 1d6 + 0.6
Fireball has a max damage of 10d6 on 3.5
This gives maximum possible penetration of 59.6
luckly enought the game has also a tank splatbook, and the book has the m1a1
The only places it would be able to penetrate are the red ones on pic.
PS; This convertion to d&d is not realistic problably, but anyway here it is.
you can find another way to convert 1d6 to the dc and pen and use it
>>44813380
>The biggest deal with them is shut down. You can fuck one up big time by not shutting it down in the right order.
Interesting, never knew that.
Sounds a lot like a scanning electron microscope actually. Once it's on it's easy enough to use but powering it up and shutting it down incorrectly can lead to major, and very expensive damage.
>>44811079
Hello tank, meet wall of stone.
Goodbye tank.
Hello Crew, Meet Cloudkill.
Goodbye Crew.
>>44813519
The thing is, you don't fight tank by throwing projectiles at it from the distance, tank is made to take that with ease. You don't fight tank head-on at all if you can help it.
You fight tank by sneakily getting up close and stuffing Greek Fire into a visor to fry crew. Or hitting a track real hard to break it and reduce tanks mobility. Or just out-wait it and starve the crew.
>>44813616
How thick is that wall?
Tanks make pretty effective battering rams you know
>>44813616
Wouldn't standard-issue military gasmask protect against Cloudkill?
>>44813650
>This spell creates a wall of rock that merges into adjoining rock surfaces. A wall of stone is 1 inch thick per four caster levels and composed of up to one 5-foot square per level.
It's sorc/wiz 5, so 2-5 inches thick.
>>44813655
Probably, though it would depend on how you rule the interaction between tech and magic.
Like you could decide the spell overwhelms the crews gas-masks since the gas-masks arent meant to deal with magic.
On the other hand, if the tank and crew are native to the plane then the gas-mask should be able to.
So really its the DMs call
>>44812320
Question for the tread heads: What DOES 'Jack in the Box' mean? The top blowing off?
>>44811079
>Would one of these make a good final boss?
Sure. If you want, you can even leave the skeletons inside it.
>>44813721
Yes.
>>44813650
>>44813701
Not that impressive of a wall really. However, if you manage to box in the tank before the tank has built up momentum its pretty much fucked
So ambushing it is yer best bet
>>44811857
>Enlarge Person, Haste on the Fighter
>Improved Sunder, Power Attack
>Adamantine Weapon
>Full attack
Boom, sweetie
Alternatively, just about any decent blasting spell
>>44813655
From: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/cloudkill.htm
>Holding one’s breath doesn’t help.
Cloudkill doesn't require your targets to breathe.
Also, this guy: http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/War_Hulking_Hurler_(3.5e_Optimized_Character_Build)
Can throw an Abrams Tank (weighing about 60 tons) (his carrying capacity is around 150 tons) 300 meters, and can even just turn the tank upside down. If you mess around with the build a little you can even get a burrowing speed and turn up from beneath the tank.
>>44813721
An area where the former soviet tanks are definitely weaker than western ones. Using an autoloader means they don't get the same blowout protection that you can get with a human loader.
>>44813770
It's funny but he's almost certainly talking about the rubber side skirts, which you can see aren't protecting the track at the back there.
>>44813859
You don't want to cover that sprocket. If you do, mud builds up in there and it pops your tread off.
>>44813655
Most modern tanks are sealed environments. I think the more interesting question is would the spell affect the air inside the tank.
>>44813830
No, you can, just not with that shitty design they use. The US made one during the development of the Abrams that could get the job done, they just judged a human loader to be more useful.
>>44813550
Iirc, it has something to do with the transmission and how you can brick it by powering down incorrectly.
>>44813894
>You don't want to cover that sprocket. If you do, mud builds up in there and it pops your tread off.
This is true, but the skirt that goes over is wedge-shaped, and should have a tail visible above the track. I'd assume he means that falls off, rather than the entire side of the tank comes careening off.
>>44811888
Counterpoint: tanks are gay, you're gay.
>>44811079
A properly optimized Dragonfire Inspiration Bard with Sonic dragon heritage can make the entire partys fist deal an additional 30d6 Sonic damage.
Sonic damage ignores the hardness of objects.
Assuming that the Abrams depleted Uranium armor has twice the hardness and hp of steel. And the armor is around 25 inches thick. You get a total HP to punch through the armor of 25*60=150.
On average with 30d6 sonic damage, that's 4-5 hits.
So the party just needs to attack once each to break the armor.
>>44811454
>10d12, actually. Enough to two-shot a level 20 fighter, and probably reduce anything that isn't a martial class into mush.
Maybe in AD&D, most certainly not in 3.x or higher.
>>44813909
The "shitty design" is to make the turret shorter and save weight. Soviets always prioritised lower profile and weight efficiency higher than crew safety, versus the US's post-'nam concern about how it's war would look.
>>44812788
>appreciate tits
No
>>44813708
>So really its the DMs call
No. The spell clearly states:
>Holding one’s breath doesn’t help, but creatures immune to poison are unaffected by the spell.
Cloudkill doesn't need to get in someones lungs to work, the mere exposure kills them.
>>44813947
Tanks aren't, but Cav sure is.
