PDA

View Full Version : If AV was discarded and vehicle used T/W/Sv... what values would you assign them?



OgreBattle
05-11-2012, 05:00
Hullpoints convert to wounds easy enough

but toughness value, armor save? Would you rule vehicle facing as variable toughness or saves (or both?)

What would you stat for Rhino, Leman Russ, Falcon, Dreadnought and so on?

References

Wraithlord is t8 w3 3+ and a 'dreadnought equivalent'
Wraithguard are t6 w1 3+
Ogryns are t5 w3 4+
the formerly 10/10/10 thunderfire cannon is now a t7 w2 3+sv artillery piece
Carnifex is t6 w4 3+
Dreadknight is t6 w4 2+

*poison and sniper weapons would not work against vehicles.

I figure I'd stat the following...
Rhino:

CrownAxe
05-11-2012, 05:02
T7 for Av10-11
T8 for Av12
T9 for Av13
T10 for Av14

Hendarion
05-11-2012, 05:07
You'd run into all kinds of troubles excluding lots of special rules from their workings - instant death, poison, snipers, fleshbane, melta, haywire and god knows what else. And all that trouble just to get rid of two words (armour value) and replace them with another (toughness), as you do not want to alter behaviour.

Ssilmath
05-11-2012, 05:15
The only problem with assigning a toughness to vehicles is that the AV system puts a different limit on what can hurt a model than toughness does. A rhino is impervious to bolters, but T7 is not. A Dreadnought cannot be harmed by a heavy Bolter, but a T8 Wraithlord can be. It gives vehicles a sense of sturdiness, and makes transports actually able to survive the fire that would hurt their occupants. But if I had to assign a toughness, I'd have about the same as CrownAxe and have saves ranging from 4+ on things like flyers, to 3+ on most transports and 2+ on the really heavy stuff like Land Raiders.

MajorWesJanson
05-11-2012, 05:37
Making Vehicles have toughness also removes a lot of distinctiveness and tactics of using them, as toughness is a single value, while vehicles have multiple different armor values. Take away AV, and you remove any reason to get behind vehicles for an easier kill, or having to decide to expose rear armor in exchange for a shot at a certain target.

If I could change one stat/ set of rules, it would not be AV to toughness. I'd go for removing Slow and Purposeful and Fleet in favor of adding the move stat (M). And make a model's run = M, and charge = 1/2M +d6

OgreBattle
05-11-2012, 06:12
It gives vehicles a sense of sturdiness, and makes transports actually able to survive the fire that would hurt their occupants.

This is mainly to get over the "Autocannon: demolishes Rhino, bounces off of space marine" conundrum

Facing would still be in, either as reduced save or reduced toughness.

AndrewGPaul
05-11-2012, 07:27
Go on Ebay and get hold of Citadel Journals issues 10 and 11; Jervis Johnson already attempted this at the tail end of 2nd edition.

High Toughness represented overall solidity of construction; for example Imperial Guard tanks.
A large number of Wounds represented sheer bulk or redundant systems; e.g Imperial Guard again and Orks.
A good Save represented superior armour protection; e.g. Space Marines and Eldar. Saves were taken on 2D6 as with Terminator armour.

In addition, there was a special "critical hit" rule - for any Wound (?) rolls that came up a natural 6, you rolled an additional die; IIRC it went something like: 1-3 no effect; 4-5 fire (at the end of the turn, roll a die; on a 4+ the fire goes out, otherwise take an additional Wound. Keep rolling every turn); 6 Explode! The vehicle is destroyed.

The article also suggested you could use the Critical Hit rule against any target with multiple Wounds.

The_Klobb_Maniac
05-11-2012, 07:41
This is mainly to get over the "Autocannon: demolishes Rhino, bounces off of space marine" conundrum

To be fair; earlier today (or something) I was considering the oddness of low strength high AP and vice versa and came to a good real-life example:

Body armor vs. Desert Eagle (.50 cal pistol)
and
Body armor vs. M4 (5.56mm rifle)

One wounds well but doesn't penetrate well, the other is the opposite. The velocity and size of the round for the M4 and similar rifles allow it to penetrate quite well but the oft complained about round is too small to reliably kill without multiple hits. Without going into a big debate on whether or not the 5.56 is a good round, you can see this on the small scale.

I imagine on a larger scale it is indeed more difficult to imagine; but if a tank gets hit on a flat side (which is less structurally sound) than a space marines *curved* armor (more likely to not only bounce off quite literally, but also a better structure for impact) then it may well make sense. Soviet (and maybe even modern russian) tanks were built like this; though I'm unsure how well it worked in practice.

Griefbringer
05-11-2012, 07:54
Go on Ebay and get hold of Citadel Journals issues 10 and 11; Jervis Johnson already attempted this at the tail end of 2nd edition.


Actually, the original Rogue Trader rules used the toughness, wounds and armour save values for vehicles. Concept of replacing those with armour values was first introduced with the revised vehicle rules introduced in White Dwarf issue 128.

Fear Ghoul
05-11-2012, 09:04
You'd run into all kinds of troubles excluding lots of special rules from their workings - instant death, poison, snipers, fleshbane, melta, haywire and god knows what else. And all that trouble just to get rid of two words (armour value) and replace them with another (toughness), as you do not want to alter behaviour.

You wouldn't really need to change a lot of rules to accommodate a Toughness value on vehicles. Presumably Armourbane, Melta, and Haywire would need reworked but otherwise most of the other rules would stay the same. Also, I would change Poison to wounding on a 6 to hit, so that vehicles aren't totally boned by Dark Eldar.

Toughness values on vehicles works just fine in Fantasy. I see no reason why it also can't be done in 40k. Just add in two extra values for the side and rear and you're gold.

EDIT: Presumably vehicles would also have armour saves as well. I would therefore do something like this:

Rhino - T:7, Sv:3+, W:3
Land Raider - T:10, Sv:2+, W:5

MarkNorfolk
05-11-2012, 09:11
Actually, the original Rogue Trader rules used the toughness, wounds and armour save values for vehicles. Concept of replacing those with armour values was first introduced with the revised vehicle rules introduced in White Dwarf issue 128.

I must be one of the few who have a fondness for Turn Rate Ratio.....

Cheers
Mark

DietDolphin
05-11-2012, 09:16
I think the two changes that would make the game a lot simpler to balance these kind of this is to give units a movement stat and bring back armour save modifiers (rather than AP values).

Fouler
05-11-2012, 14:30
I actually think that AV works fine as is, functionally it's just a formula of AV - 4 = Toughness, with a modified to-wound chart (no extra line of 6+ to wound).

With the addition of Hull Points, I think the only thing that's needed to "fix" vehicles is to give them armor saves. I think this would round out the aforementioned "autocannons bounce off marines but slaughter Rhinos" phenomenon, if rhinos had a 3+ armour save as well.

Perhaps this could also be facing dependent? That might make things too complicated. Either way, the combination of facing-dependent AV and an armor save really would differentiate both vehicles and anti-vehicle weapons. It would also let heavier vehicles get out of cover more easily. The dangerous part would be the temptation to give heavy vehicles a 2+ armor save and AV14 and make them nigh-invulnerable except to meltaguns....

wait, is that really a problem?

Vaktathi
05-11-2012, 15:30
Currently, vehicles already functionally have T values as a result of HP's.

AV10=T6
AV11=T7
AV12=T8
AV13=T9
AV14=T10

The primary distinction being that they require 1 higher minimum strength to hurt (e.g. lasguns *can* potentially hurt T6 but cannot hurt AV10) while any "to-wound" roll exceeding the minimum required to wound them (e.g. a lascannon rolling a 3 against AV11) will cripple them or inflict Instant Death.

Also, most vehicles are always WS0/WS1 and T6 in assaults regardless of what their other AV is, along with almost no vehicles (a rare few exceptions aside) having saves besides whatever cover saves they can scare up.


That's where we are at now, they've functionally already got T/W's

If they really are to be fully switched over to that, they'd need saves and to stop being hilariously gimped in CC. Right now there in this weird cross-phase between being an MC and the 5E vehicle rules where they've got the worst parts of both and the best parts of neither :p

OgreBattle
06-11-2012, 02:14
There'd be a lot of revising needed to the AP of various weapons for such a change to occur too
say the Shuriken cannon, right now it's competent light vehicle buster, but if a rhino has a 3+, or even 4+ sv, its competency drastically lowers.



*Stormtroopers with ap3 hellguns would also be able to take down t6 vehicles, that gives them some use... maybe.