PDA

View Full Version : A thought on the 'Skimmer Moving fast' rule



Fixer
27-11-2007, 12:12
With all the Holofields and Hammerheads flying around these days I was thinking about the reasoning behind why they got that rule in the first place. The reasoning was that they were able to duck and dive, generally avoid fire and therefore avoid taking serious hits.

Then I remember that it was similar to BFG's firing rules. Ships moving abeam to guns were far harder to hit, but ships bearing down on you or running away were much easier to target and land solid hits on.

The idea
How about a slight change to SMF rule that matches this? SMF only counts for shots/close combat attacks against the vehicle's side armor.

This actually helps helps the game/fluff aspect of the game a little when looking at the Hammerhead/Falcon comparison. Hammerheads are supposed to be sturdier built and more capable of taking incoming fire. Additionally, there's a reason to keep a Hammerhead still if you're taking your hits on your front armor. You can use the advanced landing mechanism on your vehicle.

My god... perhaps even use those sensor spines so concealment actually matters.

Falcon gravtanks would still be hard to kill at range but can't just plough directly into the enemy and shrug off enough AT firepower to kill a Land Raider ten times over. You have to think more about facing and plan ahead.

Perhaps these rules wouldn't work too well with regular light skimmers, so a ruling that they only apply to vehicles with AR12 front or higher might work. (with exceptions for the MOTRW and Vect's force field vehicles)

Combined with the rumoured vehicle table overhaul to make tanks generally more sturdy I think this could be a nice fix and a good houserule to use in the meantime. Going to suggest it to the club this wednesday.


What do you think? :)

bosstroll
27-11-2007, 12:24
SMF should only aply to those skimmers that have an AV of 11 or lower on their highest av facing.

Captain Micha
27-11-2007, 12:47
or they could just make hull down rules auto matic like smart people.

Smf is not broken, my lovely track record of losing a hammerhead, and devilfish minimum every game is proof of that one.

-That- rule is fine. It's the lack of a good hull down rule for tracked vehicles that's the problem

bosstroll
27-11-2007, 12:57
or they could just make hull down rules auto matic like smart people.

Smf is not broken, my lovely track record of losing a hammerhead, and devilfish minimum every game is proof of that one.

-That- rule is fine. It's the lack of a good hull down rule for tracked vehicles that's the problem

Actually, its not the Tau vehicles that are problematic with smf, its the falcon, wave serpent and fire prism that prove problematic due to the stones+field+smf combo, removing 1 of 3 of these 3 tanks solves most problems.

So you are actually kinda right, i'd especially love if hulldown became automatic again like in 3rd ed. (im a guard player)

Permanganate
27-11-2007, 13:08
SMF isn't the problem; it's easy enough to make a Devilfish ineffective or destroyed. Even if you only stun it this turn, you'll kill it next turn because it won't get SMF again. The percieved problem with skimmers is because the two most popular skimmers - Land Speeder Tornados and Falcons - have weaponry and wargear, respectively, that make the vehicles much too good for their cost. It's not even those two vehicles that are the problem, and it's certainly not the entire class of vehicle, so don't change that.


-That- rule is fine. It's the lack of a good hull down rule for tracked vehicles that's the problem

I also agree with this.

Disclaimer: I have a mech Tau army.

Ravenwing gunner
27-11-2007, 13:32
What upgrades do speeders get? None...
I hide my speeders at the start of the game. My opponet goes out of his way to nail those units. The AC/Hb speeder is fine in the SM codex but the DA/BA codexs is a little high.

Besides the SM speeder is on par with the eldar viper not the falcon. For the cost of one of those upgraded falcons you can get almost 3 HB/AC speeders.
The Tau's piranah is closer to the speeder than the devilfish and hammerhead.

If our Land raiders tanks could move like the falcons we might have an issue. If we had the venerable rule and extra armor and still not get close to the abilities of the falcon.

I am not mad its just hard to compare the different codexs with the different units.
Each has different jobs. Besides the fluff is that the eldar are more advanced than all the humans. We just breed faster....

Hope this helps.

Bloodknight
27-11-2007, 13:52
Land speeders and Eldar vehicles can avoid stunned results. Tau and Dark Eldar cannot, that makes their vehicles more bearable.

Fixer
27-11-2007, 13:57
One of the things to consider about the SMF rule is that it really does nullify a lot of the advantages of specialised anti tank weapons.

Melta guns, Meltabombs Railguns. Such things bring landraiders to their knees, but against skimmers the best you can get is a glancing hit. In the case of meltabombs as well, this is addition to being 3 times as hard to hit in the first place.

All the other melee attacks as well. Monsterous creatures, Chainfists, lots and lots of stealers (I use all of these things) for some reason the fact that the tank is floaty and has a huge exposed underbelly means I cannot seriously harm it.

Keichi246
27-11-2007, 15:07
One of the things to consider about the SMF rule is that it really does nullify a lot of the advantages of specialised anti tank weapons.

Melta guns, Meltabombs Railguns. Such things bring landraiders to their knees, but against skimmers the best you can get is a glancing hit. In the case of meltabombs as well, this is addition to being 3 times as hard to hit in the first place.

All the other melee attacks as well. Monsterous creatures, Chainfists, lots and lots of stealers (I use all of these things) for some reason the fact that the tank is floaty and has a huge exposed underbelly means I cannot seriously harm it.

Of course - if said huge exposed underbelly is floating 6 inchs beyond your maximum reach - then yeah - it WILL be hard to hit with Chainfists and lots of stealers... :D (the reason the 6s hit? those are the tall guys... :D)The key part of that is FLOATING. That puts it out of reach of most guys on the ground. It's also hard to attach that meltabomb securely (ie a shaped charge) if your target is screaming along faster than you can run...

I've always seen the the Skimmers moving fast rule as a bob and weave. Tracked vehicles don't really move side to side well at all - whereas skimmer tanks can be moving in 3 dimensions at any point in time. It's really hard to aim for that weak spot if the tank is moving around like a bobblehead...

The Tau tanks really aren't the problem for SMF - overall they are pricy, and not THAT hard to render ineffective. That Hammerhead? ANY glance renders it combat ineffective at LEAST one round - with an almost 50% chance of being rendered combat ineffective period... Think about it. 1,2 - can't shoot. (combat ineffective 1 round) 3 - can't move or shoot - easy meat next turn. 4 - scratch that big main gun. 5 - Immobilized and likely destroyed, unless I bought Decoy launchers. Which then give me a reroll - and a 3+ pretty much screws the tank. 6 - Boom.
Most games - I'm lucky if 1 Hammerhead makes it to the end of the game.

If you HAD to modify the Skimmers moving fast rule - I'd settle for the Obscured rulles. Otherwise - I just think that the problem is the survivability of ground tanks.

themandudeperson
27-11-2007, 15:46
wouldn't a forced re-roll to hit be a more fluffy and effective revision to the SMF rule? That would mean BS 5 units would hit 69.44% of the time while BS 4 units would hit 44.44%, BS3 units would hit 25% and BS 2 units would hit 11%. This makes skimmers harder to hit because of their speed.. not harder to kill, like they are now. I don't care how fast a skimmer is moving, if it takes it in the face from a multi-melta, it's still going to be melted into slag. But if they're moving at mach 2, it's damned near impossible to get an accurate shot off at something going that fast.

The_Outsider
27-11-2007, 16:48
I argue that the rule itself is fine - though I do dislike how falcons and hammerheads work (but thats a discussion for another day).


-That- rule is fine. It's the lack of a good hull down rule for tracked vehicles that's the problem

Again I agree, thats where the problem lies.

Although I think it doesn't help that the falcon/prism/hammerhead have really good armour (well, AV12 for falcon is still good) it that for them AV12 works out better than AV12 for tracked vehichles.

That said tracked vehicles do have (on average) higher armour.

Spell_of_Destruction
27-11-2007, 17:27
Otherwise - I just think that the problem is the survivability of ground tanks.

I think you've hit the nail in the head. I think skimmers (with the possible exception of the Falcon/Prism holofield combo) are about right in terms of survivability. Ground tanks are far too vulnerable under the current rules.

I even thought this in 3rd ed but for some reason it was decided that vehicles would become easier to destroy. I think that bringing back the old hull down rules would go a long way to fixing this.