Its safe to say that a lot of anti-tank weapons have fallen behind. So many blast weapons are better equipped at taking out tanks etc. Just look at the demolisher vs the vanquisher or the Macharius heavy vs the vanquisher, the only anti-tank weapons that are good at their job are when they have multiples, like lascannons etc. or titanic weapons like valcano cannons. How would you make anti-tank worth it. I think that a blanket rule wouldn't work because things like predators would just become too OP. But I think GW/FW have to look at weapons on an individual level, like vanquishers have them hit with their normal damage but + D3 mortal wounds along with it if they are shooting a tank or monster, or re-rolls or something that makes them worth taking. Its sad not seeing my vanquishers etc. on the table top.
I actually like blast weapons being actually dangerous for once. It was always colossally stupid to me that half ton shell from Vindicator could only do one wound to a monster (or hull point to tank) when in reality, explosion that big would literally tear them apart. Maybe AT needs higher strength (and bonus to damage if you exceed target's toughness by X?) but I don't see how big explosions being good is a bad thing.
You missed my point, single shot or double shot anti-tank weapons absolutely are being left behind and they are far outperformed by blast weapons and there are a hell of a lot of units that have this problem, making them worthless to field, like a vanquisher etc.
Funnily enough that's kinda realistic. Look at US tank forces in France, Sherman with 76 mm anti tank gun had far superior penetration but all tank commanders demanded 75 mm version, as its high explosive shell was much better in all scenarios besides vainglorious tank duels with Germans (which was pretty rare occurrence). To the point tank units fielded 4-6 Shermans with 75 mm gun for a single 76 mm variant.
I read D-Day history pretty recently and analogy to Vanquisher and regular Russ gun came to mind pretty much immediately
In a local discussion about this a while ago we floated the idea of each model only being able to take one hit per die of a random hits weapon. So a unit of 3 surviving models could take 3 hits from a flamer, but potentially 6 hits from a twin flamer or 12 fro a quad mortar. It doesn't quite work because weapons weren't statted with it in mind, but bringing it in and then allowing different dice (beyond just the D3 and D6) to add variety to weapons wouldn't be unwelcome.
This makes no sense. If I focus flamer on one dude instead of swinging it in an arc to hit whole squad, why would he magically take less damage? If I hit big monster with mortar directly, making him absorb whole explosion and shrapnel, why would it take as much damage as troopers in a squad where said shell exploded in the middle hitting no one directly but covering area to hit multiple troopers?
Maybe characters could use some sort of blast protection, but anti-explosion and anti-flame fields of past editions were dumbest rules around
Because its a low velocity cannon, that's why its a short barrel and large calibre, its designed to set off a large amount of explosives. It isn't supposed to be an anti-tank weapon, anti-tank weapons have long barrels and high velocity rounds so that they can penetrate armour whether its a projectile or shaped charge. The reason a Demolisher can crack open a building or bunker is because of the yield of its explosives. Its not supposed to be AT.
You're aware that the 'not supposed to be AT' gun of ISU-152 (the closest analog to demolisher in WW2) with its 'short barrel and large calibre' gun could literally blow Tiger tank turret clean off with a single hit? Or kill the entire crew with the amount of spalling (turning inside of armor plate into shrapnel) it produced on hull hit even if it didn't penetrate? Sounds pretty anti-tank to me