PDA

View Full Version : Instant death the answer?



Marked_by_chaos
21-02-2014, 23:59
It seems that one of the major hang ups with the current meta-game is that monstrous creatures are often much more effective than vehicles, and in particular walkers.

Back in the day this wouldn't necessarily have been an issue due to the multiple would characteristic of heavy and special weapons.

Perhaps the answer to rebalance the issue could be:

1. Strength 10 weapons cause d3 wounds and strength 9 cause 2 wounds
2. A new special rule of multiple wounds (2), (3) etc.
3. Certain limited weapons get the instant death rule. An example might be a demolisher or magna-melta (naturally really hard monstrous creatures could be given eternal warrior).
4. Damage (or "injury") table for monstrous creatures

Any thoughts?

Camman1984
22-02-2014, 00:06
Instant death would be too much, take the demolisher cannon for example, killing off a pair of riptides on a straight 2+ or wraithknights on a 3+.

My best solution would be a 'crippled' mechanic, maybe their stats or abilities are reduced at half wounds. Maybe they can smash, movement reduced, can nova charge etc.

I also like the idea of certain big weapons having multiple wounds, that would then lend itself to varied eternal warrior levels. For example weapon does 4 wounds but character has EW2 so only takes 2. Means REALLY big guns dont need D strength to be able to harm these nasty EW models, just a good MW characteristic.

MagicHat
22-02-2014, 00:06
An odd direction to take IMO.
I would strive to make vehicles more resilient, not MC less so.

Although I think that it could be reworked slightly:
If the S = T+4, you lose 2 W, (So T4 hit by S8 and T5 hit by S9 lose 2 and so on. Would allow S10 to wound T6 and do 2 wounds.
And so on, S = T+5 takes 3 W.

Grand Master Azrael
22-02-2014, 00:12
My DA Compnay Master has killed a Wraithknight Multiple times in Assault with an Instant Death Weapon-good times. However, that was only AFTER it had single handedly killed half my army (Curse Iyandin)

ehlijen
22-02-2014, 00:54
MCs are better than vehicles because they get decent saves and stay at 100% effeciveness to the end.

Vehicles are supposed to make up for that with immunity to a larger number of weapons, but the absence of saves combined with less HP than MCs of comparable size leaves that not meaning much: a single weapon able to hurt them per attacking squad is enough to be a lethal threat.

I think a slight increase in HP for most vehicles would help.

In addition MCs should have their own damage table. Something like:*
1: Dazed. I1 till end of next turn.
2: Stunned. I1 WS1 BS1 till end of next turn.
3: Shoulder: -1A permanent (min 1)
4: Knee: Half movement permanent (cumulative, ie 2 of these become 1/4 movement etc).
5: Eyes: -2 WS and BS (min 1)
6: Heart: Takes a second wound.

edit: *Forgot to mention, this should only apply to wounds caused by weapons with S>T of the target or some similar restriction.

dangerboyjim
22-02-2014, 01:12
I quite like all of that.

I know GW would never go for it (because profits), but I'd also like to see these things limited in the first place. Maybe only one 'centerpeice' model per FOC, seriously 3 wraithknights? when would that ever happen? And how does it make for a balanced game? The only thing it's good for is the guys selling wraithknights...

bork da basher
22-02-2014, 08:55
the problem is not with MC's, there is nothing wrong with their mechanics or difficulty to kill. the vast majority are T6 with 4-6 wounds with a 3+ save. a very few have 2+ save. i don't see how that is difficult to kill. most heavy weapons are wounding them on 2/3+ allowing no save.

the problem is the damage mechanic for vehicles making monstrous creatures seem too good in comparison.

the majority of the complaints about MC's comes from the exceptional cases. the wraithknight and the riptide. you don't try and fix the core rules based on a minority causing the issue, it's kneejerk and doesn't bear in mind the consequences for the majority of MC's who are seriously no problem whatsoever to kill with regular firepower. if MC's were overpowered and all mighty tyranids wouldn't be the laughing stock army they are today.

fix vehicle damage rules and you automatically solve the 'problem' you imagine is there with MC's.

Marked_by_chaos
22-02-2014, 10:49
the problem is not with MC's, there is nothing wrong with their mechanics or difficulty to kill. the vast majority are T6 with 4-6 wounds with a 3+ save. a very few have 2+ save. i don't see how that is difficult to kill. most heavy weapons are wounding them on 2/3+ allowing no save.

the problem is the damage mechanic for vehicles making monstrous creatures seem too good in comparison.

the majority of the complaints about MC's comes from the exceptional cases. the wraithknight and the riptide. you don't try and fix the core rules based on a minority causing the issue, it's kneejerk and doesn't bear in mind the consequences for the majority of MC's who are seriously no problem whatsoever to kill with regular firepower. if MC's were overpowered and all mighty tyranids wouldn't be the laughing stock army they are today.

fix vehicle damage rules and you automatically solve the 'problem' you imagine is there with MC's.

Fair point. Still not sure I really buy a monstrous creature (save one with eternal warrior) requiring 4+ neutron laser or typhon rounds to bring down.

Agree about vehicle damage though. There is a great dynamic with epic that gets around this based on weapons having anti personnel or anti tank to hit/wound values. By contrast with epic there is a far greater proliferation of anti-tank weaponry (in 40k). Some weapons would then have say no chance of a penetrating hit if say they didn't have an anti-tank rule.

Eldartank
22-02-2014, 22:09
Hey, these are some great ideas here. Let's further complicate the rules so that even a small squad-sized game takes a good 4 hours or more..... ;)

ehlijen
22-02-2014, 22:25
the problem is not with MC's, there is nothing wrong with their mechanics or difficulty to kill. the vast majority are T6 with 4-6 wounds with a 3+ save. a very few have 2+ save. i don't see how that is difficult to kill. most heavy weapons are wounding them on 2/3+ allowing no save.

the problem is the damage mechanic for vehicles making monstrous creatures seem too good in comparison.

the majority of the complaints about MC's comes from the exceptional cases. the wraithknight and the riptide. you don't try and fix the core rules based on a minority causing the issue, it's kneejerk and doesn't bear in mind the consequences for the majority of MC's who are seriously no problem whatsoever to kill with regular firepower. if MC's were overpowered and all mighty tyranids wouldn't be the laughing stock army they are today.

fix vehicle damage rules and you automatically solve the 'problem' you imagine is there with MC's.

Even at T6 there is a slight logical wierdness when 3 lascannon have a very real chance to take out an AV13 walker but cannot under any circumstances take out a 4W MC in one turn.

People say poison is the bane of MCs, but at least poison allows saves (which MCs have). Gauss, haywire and entropic strike or even just having many shots with barely enough S to glance grind away at vehicles even more effectively and vehicles have less wounds and no save most of the time.
I'd have no problem with vehicles costing more, if that boosted them to similar enudrance levels.

Vehicles are somewhat tough, but they cave under fire a lot faster than MCs do. There are few MCs with 3 or less wounds left. There are very few vehicles with more than 3 HP. That is something I think needs rethinking.

insectum7
22-02-2014, 22:41
Hey, these are some great ideas here. Let's further complicate the rules so that even a small squad-sized game takes a good 4 hours or more..... ;)

Tell you what, I'll take a little more complexity around vehicles in trade for dropping the current wound allocation rules. How's that? :)

Geep
23-02-2014, 12:02
Is the save of monstrous creatures really a big problem? Most heavy weapons you hit them with will ignore that save anyway. All the save really helps against is large but weak volumes of firepower- something vehicles are completely immune to. It's not just the weak firepower of bolters and lasguns though- many, many weapons are a significant threat to MCs but not that deadly to vehicles- Plasma, snipers, almost anything with rending, massed poison, etc.

Vehicles also have the advantage that the wound/armour penetration roll greatly favours them. For example- the Lascannon, a common anti-tank gun, only affects heavy vehicles (IMO, the best comparison for most MCs) on a 4 or even 5+, whereas most MCs will be wounded on a 2+. Saves are also no longer the reserve of MCs- Daemon vehicles, cover, jink- and vehicles can sometimes even gain It Will Not Die.

The previously given MC damage table, even if only rolled on when S>T, is much harsher on MCs than the equivalent vehicle table due to the added ease of wounding/damaging MCs.

If people really feel MCs are too tough, I'd make a minor form of additional damage. For example- if wounded by something where S>T, roll a D6- on a 6, the model takes an extra wound.

Marshal
23-02-2014, 12:35
I think the issue with monstrous creatures would be solved if there were weapons that caused multiple wounds. Maybe a lascannon causes 2 wounds by default to everything (unless instant death would be the case). Maybe a demolisher cannon can cause 3 wounds. Make this a weapon by weapon case, not just about strength and AP.

bork da basher
24-02-2014, 17:56
I think the issue with monstrous creatures would be solved if there were weapons that caused multiple wounds. Maybe a lascannon causes 2 wounds by default to everything (unless instant death would be the case). Maybe a demolisher cannon can cause 3 wounds. Make this a weapon by weapon case, not just about strength and AP.

think about how insanely powerful that makes those weapons. sorry that's a terrible idea trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. MC's are fine, seriously the only ones people gripe about are the riptide and the wraithknight who are serious exceptions to the norm. face the fact that GW is scaling up 40k and they were simply the precursors into the new era of larger models.

i personally don't think some MC's are anywhere near strong enough in a lot of cases. have you played tyranids lately? what would this do to them, an already weak codex who relies almost entirely on MC's to do it's damage and largely provide synapse. almost all MC's aren't getting a save (bar cover) against the type of heavy weapons that shoot at them, causing multiple wounds on top of that is crazy.

Theocracity
24-02-2014, 18:36
I wonder if what conversions you could make create a Toughness and Armor Save system for vehicles that would be statistically equivalent to AV. If they could do that, there might be interesting ways they could standardize how units interact.

Perhaps there could be a generic Battle Damage chart. It would only affect single-model units - MCs, Vehicles, and ICs. Any time a weapon with a type-appropriate modifier wounds the target (Armor Piercing, Poison, Rending, whatever is appropriate) the unit has to roll on the Battle Damage chart. The results could be temporary effects like Blind, Strikedown, Disarm (weapon destroyed), or Multiple Wounds. Certain units would be able to Recover battle damage naturally, others might need a repair unit.

This way standard fire will hurt vehicles and MCs equally, and specialized firepower will hurt them as appropriate. It would also add some granularity to IC fights.

Zothos
24-02-2014, 20:58
Tell you what, I'll take a little more complexity around vehicles in trade for dropping the current wound allocation rules. How's that? :)

What's wrong with the wound allocation rules? I find them rather good, with the exception of barrage sniping.

Charistoph
24-02-2014, 21:18
think about how insanely powerful that makes those weapons. sorry that's a terrible idea trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. MC's are fine, seriously the only ones people gripe about are the riptide and the wraithknight who are serious exceptions to the norm. face the fact that GW is scaling up 40k and they were simply the precursors into the new era of larger models.

i personally don't think some MC's are anywhere near strong enough in a lot of cases. have you played tyranids lately? what would this do to them, an already weak codex who relies almost entirely on MC's to do it's damage and largely provide synapse. almost all MC's aren't getting a save (bar cover) against the type of heavy weapons that shoot at them, causing multiple wounds on top of that is crazy.

Actually, this issue was brought up when there were no Hull Points, MCs had Armourbane instead of Smash, and the Riptide and Wraithknight were twinkles in an artist's eye.

Also consider that the most common AV weapon right now is the Autocannon (or equivalent), not the Missile Launcher or Lascannon, due to their access to multiple shots and Skyfire access, which will allow most MCs their Save, easily.

It would be interesting to explore the effectiveness of granting Vehicles an Armour Save against Glancing Hits. Like a base 4+, and 3+ for Tanks. In many cases, it will still be ignored, but allow a chance to survive a Fire Warrior enema.

wanderingblade
25-02-2014, 05:05
I personally believe 40K has a greater problem with the current high effectiveness of shooting and increasing frailty of most units compared with it than it does with Monstrous Creatures. Most of these proposed changes would merely extend the problem.

I would rather look at offering succour to vehicles, particularly walkers, who mostly suffer from being overpriced generalists who need the enemy to come to them because of slowness and underwhelming firepower.