PDA

View Full Version : Are the Vehicle Rules broken???



Reflex
26-12-2006, 01:03
This is coming up quite frequently these days, either that or i am noticing it more.

Are the vehicle rules slightly broken? It seems to me that people would rather not take a tank because it can be destroyed to easy.
An example of this general thought is "Sir Phobos" thread on an armoured company. Quite a few of the replies in that thread say its way too easy to deny a tank. In all honesty it is really.

So is this the general thought? Is that how it is in the game? Dose this genuinely effect game Mechanics?

Some thoughts have come up about the damage tables.

On a glancing hit:

Shaken: this is a bit of good old fashion BS if you ask me. So the tank has been hit, and the round or laser has gone through the tank but done no real damage.

IMHO i think that instead of not being able to shoot, it should be a negative 1 to hit modifier for the next turn... OH WAIT they took away to hit modifiers, that didnít stuff things up slightly.

Stunned: should be half movement or 1/4 movement and a -2 to hit. Passengers should automatically disembark.

Armament Destroyed and Immobilized: pretty self explanatory, but for armament, it should be randomly determined.

Destroyed: on a glancing hit... little sketchy if you ask me. Maybe instead it should be all of the above. So itís immobilized, a weapon is destroyed and it has a -2 mod for shooting.

Penetrating Hit + Ordnance:
1 to 3 should be same as glancing...

As itís a penetrating hit, i donít think the vehicle should be destroyed, a roll of a 4 should be the same as a glancing hit, a 5 and 6 should destroy the vehicle.

This is just small thoughts of mine, so it might be over the top to some, but not enough for others...


I do believe that a vehicle can be destroyed to easy. For armies that use vehicles, which is most, donít usually come out with much of a vehicle left at the end of the game.


I donít think vehicles should be able to be harder to destroy, but they should be getting smashed up when they get shot at. I mean you should be able to immobilize and destroy weapons easier, effectively making the tank useless, but not destroyed.

I am not sure if i should go on as i might be wasting my time, but what are other people's point of view on this topic?

hellfire
26-12-2006, 01:55
just add structure pointsto all tanks its a nice simple system

Carcass
26-12-2006, 02:30
just add structure pointsto all tanks its a nice simple system

I agree, but if you overdo it, they will become too powerfull. Maybe one construcion point and then have the known tables.

Hellebore
26-12-2006, 02:46
You could apply the obscured target mechanic to stunned hits.

IE they may only move or fire on a 4+ next turn, just as you may only count obscuring target on a 4+.

Also, for a shaken hit (can't shoot next turn) you could instead give the option to choose either movement OR shooting to perform next turn, rather than just moving.

See my thread:
http://warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=48314

On why and how I think the vehicle rules should be changed.

Hellebore

Fideru
26-12-2006, 03:00
Since I started to play IG, I do not like the fact that my tanks can be one-shotted. I would welcome change to the rules surronding tanks, but I do not want them to be over-powered.

Orbital
26-12-2006, 03:13
What we have to understand is that the game is not about realism, but about rules and balance. I personally think that the vehicle rules aren't very realistic, but I also think the idea of a trained military shooter missing the target 50% of the time is pretty weird... not to mention the idea of a basic infantry weapon shooting no further than 3x the height of the shooter, the fact that a Guardsman who is being charged would put down his lascannon and take out his dagger, or that a skimmer would start a battle by parking and thenmoving.

The vehicle damage rules are the way they are so that things don't get out of hand. If you take a vehicle (especially a passenger transport), you gain several advantages against your enemy, so you have to be able to spell that off with certain risks. I believe those risks are present and, at least to some extent, balanced in the current rules.

Finally, we also have to keep in mind that whatever vehicle rules there are need to exist in a way which can be executed simply and don't slow down the flow of the game. There can be several kinds of damage tables, maybe even various kinds for various parts of the vehicle, but each attack against a vehicle would then require flipping through pages and pages of charts. Right now the rules are simple, balanced and keep things moving, and you can't ask for more than that.

My two cents.

UnRiggable
26-12-2006, 03:29
I think they're fine, its just some upgrades for tanks that are broken (holo fields and the monolith come to mind...)

Orbital
26-12-2006, 03:35
You make a good point UnRiggable: Some of the upgrades are too much. Falcons with Holo-Field, Spirit Stones and Vectored Engines are almost impossible to kill: A Marine Lascannon would have to roll 3+, 3+, 6+, 6+... in that order. That's a tough job.

HarkonGreywolf
26-12-2006, 12:07
I have to say, as an Ork, that vehicles are way too easily killed and the penalties that apply to the mobz inside are truly debilitating.
I have played many games with my orks, and even using 4 trukks in 2000points (3 Trukk Boys + Boss and Nobs in Trukk) I rarely have a vehicle left after turn 2 unless it hides all the time.
Transports should have some chance of getting the troops they carry into the position they need.
Mine never do.
They are an almost complete waste of time most games.
I still take them because it is "fluffy" to do so, but the fact that a Penetrating Stunned hit means the boys disembark and are entangled/pinned is ridiculous!
Basically as long as you hit with a penetrating shot you have disabled the vehicle, and as many armies ae hitting 60% or 50% of the time it generally only takes 2 shots to cripple your vehicle!
I do feel the rules are too harsh against Transports in this Ed.

And what's with the smoke rules, why are they only available once per game? Ridiculous! Any tank commander worth his salt is going to have sufficient smoke to last for hours! If you have paid for smoke launchers, you should be able to utilise smoke all game long if you want, after all it isn't necessarily going to save your vehicle, but it might just help it survive to turn 3!!!

Harkon Greywolf

Orbital
26-12-2006, 12:10
Two things:
- Remember to balance a vehicle's fragility against its points cost. Should you really expect a 40 point Trukk to hang in there as long as a goobed-up, 220 point Falcon does?
- The games are not about realism. They're about balance. On the one hand, your vehicles can only pop smoke once per game... but on the other hand, do you really think a single krak missile shouldn't blow any open-topped vehicle into smithereens? In this game you gotta focus on the rules rather than the realism.

Ravenous
26-12-2006, 12:22
I would have to agree with greywolf. Speed freaks suffered massively in this edition. They even toned down the kustom force field making you roll the 4+ hull down instead of it being automatic.

Vehicles are one shot wonders, unless they can get some serious hardware like holo field and crystal targeting matrix (sadly is now gone but its for the better).

I think perhaps they should introduce AV15 or higher. Or have a structure "wound" system istead, and adjust the tables to fit.

EDIT: off topic but I just was looking at something and I think its just that orks are broken (as in they are pooh on toast)
Compare:
10 trukk boyz with 1 rokkit laucha, a nob with a powerclaw and a trukk with a rokkit launcha and armoured plates is 171pts
10 marines with 1 melta gun, vet sgt with powerfist and a rhino is 240pts
For 70 pts your save goes from 6+ to 3+. Your S goes to 4. Ld to 9. Bs2 to 4.
Either Orks are too expensive or marines are too cheap.

azimaith
26-12-2006, 13:19
This is coming up quite frequently these days, either that or i am noticing it more.

Are the vehicle rules slightly broken? It seems to me that people would rather not take a tank because it can be destroyed to easy.
An example of this general thought is "Sir Phobos" thread on an armoured company. Quite a few of the replies in that thread say its way too easy to deny a tank. In all honesty it is really.

One cannot forget how much damage a single ordnance style tank can do it one turn. For non-ordnance non-dakka style tanks however, they suffer. I'd like to see thanks that are better at killing other tanks compared to troops.



So is this the general thought? Is that how it is in the game? Dose this genuinely effect game Mechanics?

Some thoughts have come up about the damage tables.

On a glancing hit:

Shaken: this is a bit of good old fashion BS if you ask me. So the tank has been hit, and the round or laser has gone through the tank but done no real damage.

Actually it means the laser/round/whatever has smacked the tank and rocked it around a bunch but didn't penetrate the vehicle. Shaken results are not results for the tank, but for the crew, who were knocked all over on the impact. I'd say -1 BS or roll one more dice and take the highest for ordnance/barrage.



Stunned: should be half movement or 1/4 movement and a -2 to hit. Passengers should automatically disembark.

No stunned should be stopping with no firing. Otherwise your screwing tyranids over big time. You need to be able to stun vehicles.



Armament Destroyed and Immobilized: pretty self explanatory, but for armament, it should be randomly determined.

But how do you randomly determine it? What about tanks with 5 guns? What about tanks with 4 guns? Do we need to start carrying polyhedral dice to W40k games now? Or worse, buy custom dice for each vehicle?



Destroyed: on a glancing hit... little sketchy if you ask me. Maybe instead it should be all of the above. So it’s immobilized, a weapon is destroyed and it has a -2 mod for shooting.

This would make skimmers even more powerful and regular tracked tanks even worse by comparison. When was the last time someone complained about how weak their skimmer was compared to a 3 las predator? The justification of an ammo explosion, dead crew/whatever is good enough. Destroyed should stay. Besides, necrons would be screwed bad here, they've only got one heavy weapon at strength 9 other than the monolith and its mounted in the heavy support section on a pricey jetbike with a maximum 3 man squad.



Penetrating Hit + Ordnance:
1 to 3 should be same as glancing...

No, ordnance should be much better at killing tanks.



As it’s a penetrating hit, i don’t think the vehicle should be destroyed, a roll of a 4 should be the same as a glancing hit, a 5 and 6 should destroy the vehicle.

Once again the brush is far too broad. What about eldar spirit stone skimmers? You often only get them to stop for a turn with a stunning hit before they start speeding around again.



I do believe that a vehicle can be destroyed to easy. For armies that use vehicles, which is most, don’t usually come out with much of a vehicle left at the end of the game.

Tell that to eldar and tau. They'll laugh at you.



I don’t think vehicles should be able to be harder to destroy, but they should be getting smashed up when they get shot at. I mean you should be able to immobilize and destroy weapons easier, effectively making the tank useless, but not destroyed.

I think tanks should just flat out be harder to cripple. Ok someone shoots my tank and its blown up, thats that. What makes me mad is in my armored company when 80% of my tanks all have scratched paint and no one is able to fire a single shot because my crew can't take a little jostle.


Like I said before, your painting with waaaay to broad of a brush here. Skimmers and their ilk do not need to be tougher. They are hard to destroy and their speed makes them capable of evading massed fire.

Tracked tanks can be the same difficulty to destroy but shouldn't be crippled by getting dinged up.

Tracked tanks/slow tanks should be given the ability: "grounded", Vehicle shaken ignored on a 2+, vehicle stunned ignored on a 4+, rolled before any reduction by extra armor or the like.

This means that while a leman russ will get blasted a bunch, most of the time it can just roll a 2+/4+ and keep shooting relying on pure ablation to save it.Remember that part of the reason why lascannon dev teams can kill tanks so easily is that if they give it a little kick in the ass everyones too busy crapping themselves inside the tank to shoot back. See if dev squads will be so keen to plop themselves into cover if the next time they do it the tank will shoot back on a 2+.

I'd go even farther as to encourage a -1 cover save for ordnance. A building will protect you, yes, but most of the building will become flying shrapnel, same thing with forests, and a 6+ for fences and tall grass? Hah, don't worry about getting buried.



EDIT: off topic but I just was looking at something and I think its just that orks are broken (as in they are pooh on toast)
Compare:
10 trukk boyz with 1 rokkit laucha, a nob with a powerclaw and a trukk with a rokkit launcha and armoured plates is 171pts
10 marines with 1 melta gun, vet sgt with powerfist and a rhino is 240pts
For 70 pts your save goes from 6+ to 3+. Your S goes to 4. Ld to 9. Bs2 to 4.
Either Orks are too expensive or marines are too cheap.
Yes, and orks drop the marine saves to 4+, get wounded by destroyed vehicles on a 6+, can speed 24" around the board (and thats not even maximum) have a nob with 2 wounds, 3 *base* attacks,4 with slugga, 2 s8, ap3 weapons while the rhino has a storm bolter, can WAAAGH for init 4, can ignore hits on their trukk on a 6+, and they can assault out of their trukk making a full 20" assault (12" move, 2" deploy, 6" assault) while the marines can't.

And all that for 69 points less.

In nearly all cases I couldn't give a flying crap in a hat if my assault troops were crosseyed and had no trigger fingers as long as they could beat the living snot out of my enemy in assault. Considering the orks are moving so much faster than the SM, they'd probably get the charge, make their size check (as it would be rolling under 10 on 2d6) and just butcher marines left and right with 2 base attacks, 3 with slugga, and *4* on the charge, with a 4+ enemy armor save, followed by 5 armor save denying strength 8 attacks from the nob if anyone is even left to butcher.

Its like comparing apples and oranges, the marines are generalists, which is why the assault specialists like orks would butcher them in that theoretical melee despite the point disparity. Also, why would anyone take a rokkit launcha on a boy, thats not specializing, take a burna and add 2 more armor save denying attacks or just choppa+slugga.

Are space marines underpriced. Yeah probably by like 1-2 points, but orks are nothing to be scoffed at, especially not speed freeks, which share little in common with the rather pathetic state of footsloggers.

Orbital
26-12-2006, 13:22
I think perhaps they should introduce AV15 or higher. Or have a structure "wound" system istead, and adjust the tables to fit.

For the record, I don't want 40 and 50 point vehicles to be harder to kill. Also, I think that a few of the really expensive vehicles are way too hard to destroy.

p.s. There is no Crystal Targeting Matrix anymore.

xibo
26-12-2006, 14:35
Hmmm... it takes about 5-6 hits with a railgun to kill a carnifex... it takes about 12 hits with a railgun to destroy a baneblade facing you, or still 5-6 multimelta hits for the carni while just 9 for the baneblade...
ok, i agree the baneblade can inflict hell more damage than a carnifex, but its still 5 times the expensive...

azimaith
26-12-2006, 14:58
Hmmm... it takes about 5-6 hits with a railgun to kill a carnifex... it takes about 12 hits with a railgun to destroy a baneblade facing you, or still 5-6 multimelta hits for the carni while just 9 for the baneblade...
ok, i agree the baneblade can inflict hell more damage than a carnifex, but its still 5 times the expensive...
Baneblades are superheavy vehicle thus roll on superheavy vehicle damage table. That means you won't even be inflicting structure points on most hits unless you roll well. Besides, how do the broadsides survive, they all need direct LOS so the turn they fire will probably be the turn they all die under multiple pie plate death.

You can get about 3 gunfex for one bane blade. Comparing a plain no guns fex is stupid as you can't have a no guns weapons carnifex and it would be like complaining a guy with a power weapon is as good as a guy 5 times more expensive with 2 ordnance templates, 3 twin linked heavy bolters, and 3 autocannons.

TzarNikolai
26-12-2006, 15:51
forgeworld stuff is quite notorious for being overpriced anyway, so lets not compare baneblade and carnifex.

the thing with vehicles over squads etc. is that a lot of them can realiably do more damage, or move furthur, or transport your troops or all 3.

as a DE player my vehicles are about as resilient as they should be, and i'm sure that many other people would agree so with theirs. falcons are perhaps too resilient for what they do, chaos vehicles are often immune to stunned/shaken, ork trukks should probably blow up as soon as they're looked at (where this leaves orks on balance and mobility is a different question, but 30 points should only get you so far), and leman russes are immune to S7 or below weapons from the front and you have to be either S10 or lance to have a 50% chance of a damage roll from the front. (although i have seen an SM players only 2 lascannons destroy 2 in the first turn)

the problem though is that with a one shot kill possible, they are much more prone to luck than say a carnifex. which is guaranteed to last at least 4 shots. this swings the other way too, i've seen landspeeders fail to die after 8 lance hits, because you need to stop it moving then next turn roll a 4+ to destroy it. sometimes it just doesn't happen.

in the end, barring lucky rolls i think the vehicle system as is is quite good. maybe some things just need repricing to make them more viable (or less viable for eldar...)

FireN.Brimstone
26-12-2006, 17:11
Bottom line vehicles are a “luck” based system (or more accurately a more luck based system). It’s much easier to do nothing to a vehicle, but on the flip side, should you penetrate the armor, they’re much easier to destroy. I like that.

To my mind it’s not the Vehicle damage table that’s the problem, it’s the large number of anti-tank weapons pressed into an anti-MEQ role. Thus making it so you’re tanks are always looking a far more dedicated “anti-tank” weapons than they should.

Thus my solution to the problem would be to make all Strength 8+ weapons have a minus 1 or 2 to-hit modifier when fired against non-monstrous creature infantry (that is anything with wounds that’s not a monstrous creature). Now I’m sure a few exception would have to be made, melta/fusion weapons (the 12” verity, not things like Multi-Meltas) seem to be a prime candidate for instance.

The theory being that people would stop taking 6 Las/Plas squads and start taking 2-3 Las/Plas Squads and 3-4 Heavy Bolter/Plas squads instead ;)

Karhedron
26-12-2006, 17:28
I don't think that Vehicles are broken per se. If they were as bad as some people seem to feel, you would rarely see them in competative play but that fact that they are taken fairly regularly means they must be roughly worth their points.

I think that TzarNikolai hit the nail on the head with his comparison to Monstrous Creatures. The reliability that MCs bring is perhaps more valuable than vehicles.

Justicar_Freezer
26-12-2006, 17:44
You Know I always liked the data-faxs of 2nd edition when it came down to how vehicles work when getting damaged and to be honest I miss them. Sure it might be a bit of a pain in the butt to carry all those cards around but if GW went back to putting them in your codex for you it wouldn't be that big of a worry.

For those who don't have a clue of what I speak the Data-fax was a little two sided card. Back in second edition. On the front of the card it told you things like what your tank was armed with, number of troops it could carry, number of crew it had and it's speed. On the back of the card it had the different parts of the tank numbered from 1 to 6. These usually where the track, the hull, the turret, and the sponsons. You randomly determined where you shot hit the tank. Once that was done if you penetrated the armor you rolled on the little chart for the part you hit. These charts to where numbered 1-6. Some of the ones I remember where, you could get a track blown off, or lossened slowing you down a bit. You could get you turret hit which could cause the ammo to blow and than you had to roll for damage in the hull to.

If I missed anything about the old Data-faxs please someone feel free to correct me because I was working strictly from memory.

I personally think having those re-introduced into the game with the vehicles current armor values would make vehicles a bit more survivable and interesting and that's my 2cents on the matter.:)

Hicks
26-12-2006, 18:18
Yes I think those rules are bad. To the point were I really don't like to take tanks anymore in my IG army (and that I think is a desing flaw). The transports are death traps and the Russes tend to go in flammes with huge chunks of my infantry because everything is so crammed in my deployment zone. And I don't count the times when my sentinels get killed by drones. Even using the vehicle support units is useless, Enginseers geared toward repairing tanks are also bad. It's to the point where going first against a Tau players who knows you'll be bringing tanks is an almost certain loss.

TzarNikolai
26-12-2006, 18:34
itís the large number of anti-tank weapons pressed into an anti-MEQ role.
so what you're saying is the tank rules suck because there's way too many marines? :p i could agree with that :D

how about something more like a warmachine damage table (http://privateerpress.com/docs/warmachine/QS_Stat_Cards_Cryx.pdf). have a grid thats always 6 across but a variable number of rows deep. (each row is also of variable height) for each damage roll you roll a d6 and see what column you damage (each of which is linked to one or more systems).
i suppose glancing hits could do something but stop that system working for a turn as opposed to for the game.
the size and shape of each grid would be individual for each vehicle, which would also represent the fragility, tech savviness, robustness of each race and correspond to the fluff for their vehicles.

azimaith
26-12-2006, 18:40
I think GW wants to stay away from stat style cards nowadays. Every effort i've seen seems to be to streamline the game and to make it more accessible. I'm sure in the future game with its new rules, a game will look like this:
Both armies, space marines and space marines line up against one another. Bristling with heavy weapons and powerfists that launch off like giant killer robots hands to strike from a distance. Player one rolls, a 6, player 2, a 4. Player 1 thus wins the game, both pack up and leave.

I think changing how stunning and shaking effect vehicles would go a long way to helping it. Possibly adding one structure point to all slow tanks that is removed when the vehicle suffers a glancing or penetrating hit of any type would go a long way.

master of chaos
26-12-2006, 19:40
I think most of the vehicles are too fragile, and some of them are just too strong, after I shot my friend's falcon, it began tankshocking my army, forcing 2 squads to run away. its almost impossible to kill a speeding falcon with 2 d6 on the glancing table, and stunned becomes shaken.

Misanthrope
26-12-2006, 19:58
Here's an idea. Instead of shaken = no shooting and stunned = no shooting or moving, perhaps shaken should = the vehicle moving 6 inches and stunned = the vehicle moving 12 for the purposes of determing which of its weapons can fire.

Captain Micha
26-12-2006, 20:09
I like the non skimmer vehicles ignore shaken stunned and shaken result chance
thats a great idea. cause really. its a ******* land raider.. have you seen the size of that thing? my tau rail gun should not be popping them like baloons?

They really made the 14 av vehicle useless. And thus anything under that almost certainly going to die.
*I play crons too. Not much luck keeping my mono alive v Tau...*

If tanks were that fragile irl guess what. no one would use them. for the points sinks that tanks are they should be big scary mother you know whats. not this thing that every basic troop choice except for Tau and well tau can pop open like baloons in a room full of nails. oh wait my bad even tau can pop "weak" vehicles like balloons....

Cruentus
26-12-2006, 20:19
If tanks were that fragile irl guess what. no one would use them. for the points sinks that tanks are they should be big scary mother you know whats.....

Well, what was the US to Iraqi kill ratio for tanks? I'd say that even in RL, tanks aren't very useful, or scary, unless you're the ones with the best tech and training.

So, in a warGAME, things have to be balanced to make it useable in the game. I would argue that things like tanks (Land Raider, Falcon, Railhead, Basilisk, Russ, etc.) really don't have a place in 40k type games. Bear with me. 40k used to be more 'skirmishy' than it is now. But ultimately, its still rather small scale (more skirmish) than, say, Epic. We're talking about a couple of squads and support specialists. Would the game be less interesting - maybe. Would it be easier to balance - probably.

I mean, look at the scene in Saving Private Ryan when the tank rolls up the street. That's a 40k type moment. Infantry scrambling around, trying to stay out of sight, because the tank is dangerous, and tough to kill. The way a chimera can be in Combat Patrol (if you don't know its going to be there).

Used to be that Marines (and maybe others) had a wargear card that allowed you to 'ignore the first penetrating hit'. It cost points, but everyone took it. Giving everyone the 'structure point' or something might work, but it'll make some way better than others.

Sorry about the meandering :D

Misanthrope
26-12-2006, 22:38
The trouble with AC is the trouble with all tanks in the modern world. See, there are two basic types of tanks. Combat and Support. Combat tanks, like the Sherman and Panther of WW2, and T-72 and Abrams of today, are used in massive armadas who use lightning-quick tactics to pound on the opponent's built-up forces and defenses, utterly slag them, and move on. They are often accompanied by supporting infantry to deal with threats deemed too risky for the tanks; urban areas, heavily forested areas, etc, where tanks become highly susceptible to infantry.

Support tanks, on the other hand, reverse roles. They are placed into mainly infantry-based formations to provide support via weapons that normal infantry couldn't possibly use. These include things like the tanks in WW1, early Churchill, Sturmpanzer, and today's BMP-series, Warrior and Bradleys. At first they were built to be incredibly strong with massive weapons but slowly these were abandoned and replaced with lighter, smaller vehicles, usually armed mainly for anti-infantry but with some anti-armour capability.

Essentially the problem with AC is that there are no other tank-heavy armies out there. If they developed an AC list for each of the factions -- MEQs, Eldar, Tau, Orks, etc -- then AC would rock and having mainly armour vs. armour battles I think would be insanely fun. But the scale and scope of 40K limits AC's usefullness and places them in situations that armoured formations were not made for -- usually very brutal, up-close engagements with the vast majority of units being infantry. Now, if you played AC on a giant table, say atleast 85 square feet (atleast 100 inches wide), then you'd be able to maximize their potential for unleashing extreme firepower over long distances. But on tables that are usually only 30-50 inches from either side, they face all the same problems that real armour formations face, which is that tanks are not made for close-up battles. Any soldier in the army will tell you that tanks should stay away from close-quarters fighting whenever possible. They should sit back, and use their long range to pound the enemy, where man-portable anti-tank weapons simply can not reach. And instances in Iraq where you see American tanks in urban situations, they're almost always completely stationary or moving very slowly, with supporting infantry all around -- because even the Abrams can be knocked out by an RPG fired around a corner or from a rooftop.

Shasolenzabi
26-12-2006, 22:59
EDIT: off topic but I just was looking at something and I think its just that orks are broken (as in they are pooh on toast)
Compare:
10 trukk boyz with 1 rokkit laucha, a nob with a powerclaw and a trukk with a rokkit launcha and armoured plates is 171pts
10 marines with 1 melta gun, vet sgt with powerfist and a rhino is 240pts
For 70 pts your save goes from 6+ to 3+. Your S goes to 4. Ld to 9. Bs2 to 4.
Either Orks are too expensive or marines are too cheap.

[[[ Marines,albeit with the same stats, and weapons used to be more pointsy, like 25pt a Marine for the basic trooper, then the Lascannon was 30pts upgrade. Meltagun was 15-20, and so forth, that was back in 1st-2nd Ed where vehicles were nigh indestructable with power fields and a damage table Map! so, first, you had to pen the field, then see if you could pen the armor, and then pray you hit the ammo or fuel!

The Grand Wazoo
26-12-2006, 23:37
I think perhaps they should introduce AV15 or higher. Or have a structure "wound" system istead, and adjust the tables to fit.

For the love of [insert deity of your choice here], no. My Orks have a hard enough time taking out tanks as it is, any harder and I don't even have to set them up on the table at the start of the game.

Minos Engele
27-12-2006, 00:04
Maybe the problem isn't the vehicles themselves, but the large amounts of high-strenght weaponry that every army carries around. I say increase the points cost for all S8 weapons and higher. This will reduce weapon numbers and reduce the chances of destroying a tank.

Dais
27-12-2006, 04:18
to put it simply, vehicle rules are not broken but they are erratic.
to have a tank immune to one gun then a gun 1 S higher able to reduce it to a flaming heap in one shot just feels wrong.
i beleive vehicle rules need to be reworked with endurance and stability kept more in mind. dont get me wrong, the random damage rolls are needed but i would alter it to several lesser rolls before the vehicle is put out of action.
maybe go with damage charts, armor save of some kind, damage based on a S roll and a vehicle damage dice rolled at regular intervals of damage? it would make ap and S both valuable and allow vehicles to deversify a bit more.

Ravenous
27-12-2006, 06:22
For the love of [insert deity of your choice here], no. My Orks have a hard enough time taking out tanks as it is, any harder and I don't even have to set them up on the table at the start of the game.

I dont think you need that excuse to not put them on the table:p .

AV15 or higher is excessive you would need to re work too much. I dont want to use this example and will probably get mauled for it but how long do tanks last in real wars? not very long. Thier role is carry troops to where they need to be, support them where needed, and disrupt and scare the hell out of the enemy troops. The second they run into anything designed to kill them its 3 minutes tops.

Perhaps the problem is that their is an overabundance or anti tank weapons?




Yes, and orks drop the marine saves to 4+, get wounded by destroyed vehicles on a 6+, can speed 24" around the board (and thats not even maximum) have a nob with 2 wounds, 3 *base* attacks,4 with slugga, 2 s8, ap3 weapons while the rhino has a storm bolter, can WAAAGH for init 4, can ignore hits on their trukk on a 6+, and they can assault out of their trukk making a full 20" assault (12" move, 2" deploy, 6" assault) while the marines can't.

And all that for 69 points less

All useless unless you manage to get in combat. And even then its uphill against anything MEQ. Necrons vs orks is never pretty. All the teleporting and rapid firing is just disturbing.


In nearly all cases I couldn't give a flying crap in a hat if my assault troops were crosseyed and had no trigger fingers as long as they could beat the living snot out of my enemy in assault. Considering the orks are moving so much faster than the SM, they'd probably get the charge, make their size check (as it would be rolling under 10 on 2d6) and just butcher marines left and right with 2 base attacks, 3 with slugga, and *4* on the charge, with a 4+ enemy armor save, followed by 5 armor save denying strength 8 attacks from the nob if anyone is even left to butcher.

Its like comparing apples and oranges, the marines are generalists, which is why the assault specialists like orks would butcher them in that theoretical melee despite the point disparity. Also, why would anyone take a rokkit launcha on a boy, thats not specializing, take a burna and add 2 more armor save denying attacks or just choppa+slugga.

Thats the problem they dont butcher anything. You need to outnumber marines 2:1 in combat in order to come out on top. You could run the 2 examples I gave against each other until the end of time and marines will come out on top everytime. Hell drop the rhino and give the orks their burna it wont make the slightest difference.


Are space marines underpriced. Yeah probably by like 1-2 points, but orks are nothing to be scoffed at, especially not speed freeks, which share little in common with the rather pathetic state of footsloggers.

Here I state. SCOFF. There's 2 armies I will never lose against 1)any form of orks and 2)nids.

Making orks cheaper would help. Maybe a 5+ save. The only problem with that and they start out swarming tyranids. That just doesnt seem right.

Corax
27-12-2006, 10:52
Are the vehilcle rules broken? Depends on your point of view. If you were a Rhino-rusher in 3rd Ed., then you would probably say yes. Otherwise, I wouldn't say they are broken, but they have weakened vehicles significantly, and this has certainly changed the way people construct their armies.

Because people choose (what they perceive to be) the most 'effective' units, the use of vehicles has dropped off, as they no longer perform the way they used to. People perceive this to mean that they are 'nerfed', rather than brought back to the field. This has led to people focussing more on infantry heavy forces with lots of Infiltrators and Deep Strikers to make up for the loss of mobility.

Even so, there are still some stand out examples of powerful vehicle units that still see use. Eldar Falcons, Tau Hammerheads, IG (and IW) Basilisks are all still popular, as they are still effective at their primary role (whatever that may be). I regularly use a SM Whirlwind, as it indirect fires and I can hide it behind something solid.

Metaphorazine
27-12-2006, 11:19
Speaking as an Ork, Orky vehicles are too fragile. Yeah, I know they're only 38 odd points (not 30, you have to buy them a gun), but with no troops that fleet, how else do you get into close combat? With a 6 inch move needing to cover 2 feet, that's assaulting in your third turn, if you're lucky. With troops that have a 6+ tissue-paper save. Without vehicles, you don't even stand a chance, but armour 10 isn't even deserving the term armour, if you ask me. Fluffwise, the ork vehicles are hunks of junk that already have been blown up a few times before. That says to me that they should be covered in such a mix-match of armour panels, melted metal, and weld-lines that they're nigh impervious! :P

azimaith
27-12-2006, 11:19
Thats the problem they dont butcher anything. You need to outnumber marines 2:1 in combat in order to come out on top. You could run the 2 examples I gave against each other until the end of time and marines will come out on top everytime. Hell drop the rhino and give the orks their burna it wont make the slightest difference.

One ork is slightly more than half the cost of an SM.

Besides, 9 orks with 3 base attacks, 4 on the charge=36 attacks, hitting on 4s approx 18 hits, wounding on 5+=5.94 wounds, 2.97 dead, about 3 dead marines. Marines strike at the same time with 9 attacks, 4.5 hits, 2.25 wounds, 16% save getting us 1.89 dead orks. Powerfist and Klaw strike at the same time. Claw gets 5 attacks, 2.5 hits, 2.1 kills. Powerfist gets 3 attacks, 1.5 hits, 1.26 kills. The orks have killed 5 marines, the marines slew 3 orks. Whose supposed to be losing now?



Here I state. SCOFF. There's 2 armies I will never lose against 1)any form of orks and 2)nids.

Unless you play all skimmer eldar/tau I think your going to be mistaken when you fight an good ork/tyranid army.



Making orks cheaper would help. Maybe a 5+ save. The only problem with that and they start out swarming tyranids. That just doesnt seem right.
Only some orks need to be cheaper. Sluggas are fine, eavy boys should be 10 points, for example, stikkbommas... well they should just be gotten rid of unless they plan on giving them something neat like... I dunno, back mounted mortars or something.


Speaking as an Ork, Orky vehicles are too fragile. Yeah, I know they're only 38 odd points (not 30, you have to buy them a gun)
35 actually. The gun can be a rokkit launcha rather than a big shoota.

Ravenous
27-12-2006, 11:34
And if the marines are in cover thats a whole other story. :D

Agreed with stikkbommas they should just give the option to all orks to carry the things.

Metaphorazine
27-12-2006, 11:41
35 actually. The gun can be a rokkit launcha rather than a big shoota.

Can be, won't neccesarily be. I was just annoyed with all the people saying "Pfft, Ork trukks are only 30 points, who cares that they die instantly!". An Ork trukk upgraded to be useful costs more than a rhino, and still only has AV10. It may have a 6+ save, but small arms fire will trash it easily, and entangle the boyz who are "practised at falling out of trukks" for a turn so that they can rely on their 6+ save against an entire army worth of firing line...

azimaith
27-12-2006, 12:06
And if the marines are in cover thats a whole other story. :D

Agreed with stikkbommas they should just give the option to all orks to carry the things.

Marines in cover? What is this silliness!

I agree on stikkbommas.

As for wartrukks, in alot of ways i'm endeared to the little vehicle because its so good at its job. It can drive 24" a turn then next turn zoom 12" deploy 2 and assault 6" away letting the orkz get into the drubbing much faster. Yes they die alot, (though Speed Freeks forcefields go a long way to solving that) but I like putting skorcha wartrakks in front of them to zoom 24+ turbo boosta in front of wartrukks to protect them. I'd hazard to guess that people who have had problems getting their wartrukks to perform against most armies are players who use too little cover on their board. So many armies rip enemies apart or get totally spanked dependent on board cover. I had to learn as tyranids not to let enemies set up terrain and to be picky about which piece is where and to make sure theres terrain in the center of the board where its needed, not around the edges where its worthless for assault armies.

As for being useful. I gear my wartrukks with force fields, armor plates, the obligatory SF grot riggers, and red paint. Arm it with a rokkit. That means one costs about 50 points, much less than a rhino, and i'd take a wartrukk with a rokkit launcha, open topped without the +1 on damage tables and a 25" move over an AV11 slow cardboard box with a storm bolter any day.


Now back on topic, I still hold to my previously belief that the way to go is that tanks that can move up to 12" max and do not benefit from skimmers moving fast rules should get a save against glances/stuns. Thats what reduces deadly battletanks to ignorable annoyances on the battlefield. There are alot of cases where tanks could beat a devastator squad if they were rendered helpless as soon as they got a damage roll on the table. After all, shooting a devastator squad with an ordnance weapon and wounding a marine doesn't make every single marine in the squad unable to fire, why should it apply to tanks. After the damage roll there must be a chance for the tank to be able to return fire, not just guaranteed uselessness for a turn.

Gensuke626
27-12-2006, 12:21
Can be, won't neccesarily be. I was just annoyed with all the people saying "Pfft, Ork trukks are only 30 points, who cares that they die instantly!". An Ork trukk upgraded to be useful costs more than a rhino, and still only has AV10. It may have a 6+ save, but small arms fire will trash it easily, and entangle the boyz who are "practised at falling out of trukks" for a turn so that they can rely on their 6+ save against an entire army worth of firing line...

I call BS on the idea that a Trukk needs to cost more than a rhino to be useful...in the words of my Warboss "Yooz iz jus' a zoggin Gorker wot 'az no cunnin." I haven't played many games with my orks yet, but everything I've experienced leads me to believe that a trukk with a rokkit, Red Paint, Grot Riggers, and Armor plates is more useful than a barebones rhino and it costs 5 points less. It can move 25", Repair imoblized results on a 4+, Ignore any damage on a 6, move 13" and fire its Rokkit and/or Drop off it's Load of boyz and the Boyz can charge after being dropped off. It's all a matter of being smart and keeping the Trukks away from anti tank guns. Or sheilding it with less important things...Wartraks and buggies for instance.

Granted I don't know your style of play, typical playfield and standard army loadout, but the inference I take from your words is that you feel trukks are unreliable because they're made of Wood and Rice Paper and have no real redeeming value.

Edit-
Azi...Why aren't you buying Redpaint?

azimaith
27-12-2006, 12:27
I am

I gear my wartrukks with force fields, armor plates, the obligatory SF grot riggers, and red paint.

The ork trukk can come about to rhino price and be pretty useful, much more useful than a barebones rhino in any case.

Gensuke626
27-12-2006, 12:42
oh...Then why are you saying that Trukks only move 24" or 12" and deploy? I've always found it slightly more intimidating to say 21" charge...Maybe 22" if I put the bases in just right....

And why're you still awake? It's 2:43 in the morning...even though I've got nuffin ta do tomorrow and really wished that Rath had organized some kinda game this week...oh wellz

Metaphorazine
27-12-2006, 12:56
Granted I don't know your style of play, typical playfield and standard army loadout, but the inference I take from your words is that you feel trukks are unreliable because they're made of Wood and Rice Paper and have no real redeeming value.

They *are* unreliable! But if you take enough, then hopefully the ones that do get popped don't matter. I find though that if an opponent wants one of my trukks dead, it's dead. Specially to those damn warp spiders... :mad:

Mind you, I've just designed a 1500 Codex Ork list with 4 trukks and a dakkawaggon that I'm very partial to... :D As the mekboyz say, "If yu dun win, get mor weelz! An if dat dun werk, get mor dakka!" I'm hoping 2/4 trukks make it to the enemy, which since my usual scrumgrod plays panzees, that should be plenty. :D

Gensuke626
27-12-2006, 13:01
They *are* unreliable! But if you take enough, then hopefully the ones that do get popped don't matter. I find though that if an opponent wants one of my trukks dead, it's dead. Specially to those damn warp spiders... :mad:

Mind you, I've just designed a 1500 Codex Ork list with 4 trukks and a dakkawaggon that I'm very partial to... :D As the mekboyz say, "If yu dun win, get mor weelz! An if dat dun werk, get mor dakka!" I'm hoping 2/4 trukks make it to the enemy, which since my usual scrumgrod plays panzees, that should be plenty. :D

ahh...still...I like the Trukks...

and your previous post made it sound as if you despised the trukk...as opposed to lamenting it

Captain Micha
27-12-2006, 13:02
I don't think an rpg can take out an abrams. considering tank shells can't even take one out.

bradleys on the other hand.... yes. dearmor the vehicle... genius idea.

Gensuke626
27-12-2006, 13:05
I've never studied the Abrams or any real tank for that matter, but...
If the tank is designed to withstand tank shells then wouldn't it be quite resistant to them?

similarly, if the tank as a weak point (Say...from above aimed at the rear of the vehicle) wouldn't it be possible that a lower grade weapon such as an RPG fired at such a point could immobilize it?

I mean, In my mind, a Tank shell is going to be primarily hitting the front and sides of the tank, the places where it'd be most heavily armored...but a single person with an RPG can fire into places that tankshells just can't reach normally...such as the underbelly and the roof.

Rlyehable
27-12-2006, 13:08
Vehicles in an infantry based game are tough to balance.

In the current game vehicles with 13+ armor and/or special wargear (holofield + spirit stones + vectored engines) are tough to kill. But basic transports (Rhinos, Devilfish, Trukks, Raiders, Chimera) seem to be fairly easy to take down.

I think that the problem is that normal guns can harm low armor vehicles, while only rare heavy weapons can harm the high armor vehicles.

I would suggest making the following changes:
1. To harm a vehicle a gun would have to be classified as "anti-tank" (AT) and either be S:6+ or AP:3- (except against rear armor). A weapon may have a special rule that modifies this (Melta, Rending, Gauss, Lance, etc.) may be classified as AT..
2. Change the Main Weapon/Secondary Weapon to AT weapon or AI (anti-infantry) weapons. Weapon-destroyed result always effects an AT weapon or is converted into an Immobilize result along with loosing an AI weapon. AI weapons do not count when calculating if a vehicle has weapons when taking a 2nd Immobilize result (so a 2nd immobilize would destroy a vehicle with only AI weapons left).
3. Every unit in the game should have the option to take something that would be able to take out a vehicle (grenades, mines, heavy weapon, etc.).
4. 50 points be added to every vehicle cost (with less than 12 side armor) to represent the increased resistance.
6. Anti-tank weapons (lascannon, etc.) should have reduced effect on infantry. Either cannot target, gives a save (as AT weapons often miss infantry), or can only hit (wound for template/marker) non-vehicles/buildings on a 6+.

Metaphorazine
27-12-2006, 13:11
and your previous post made it sound as if you despised the trukk...as opposed to lamenting it

Lamenting is definitely the word. I've been learning that with Orks you can't rely on any one unit, you have to rely on the army. "Oh, they just plinked the Kanz. Well, that leaves the Skorcha buggies! Wait, they just got plinked. That's ok, there's 2 trukks rocking up on their doorstep! Nope, they just entangled. Ahh well, the 2 mobs of skarboyz finally made it to their lines! Begin the Krump!" I also lament the truk models, but that's for a different thread... :D

Gensuke626
27-12-2006, 13:42
Lamenting is definitely the word. I've been learning that with Orks you can't rely on any one unit, you have to rely on the army. "Oh, they just plinked the Kanz. Well, that leaves the Skorcha buggies! Wait, they just got plinked. That's ok, there's 2 trukks rocking up on their doorstep! Nope, they just entangled. Ahh well, the 2 mobs of skarboyz finally made it to their lines! Begin the Krump!" I also lament the truk models, but that's for a different thread... :D

Ahh yes...I lament the trukk models as well...that's why I use Chimeras that have been tastefully cut and remodeled as Ork Trukks. One day I'll post it to the Who Loves the Orks? thread down in factions and groups...keep an eye out if you're curious...I just need my friend's digicam...

@Rlyehable
Very interesting thoughts...Playtest them and tell us how it goes...but here are the flaws to that system as fasr as I can see them.

1.S6 does not make an Anti-Tank weapon. S6 is unreliable at best at damaging anything but Light Vehicles (In my mind, the equivalents of Large, slightly armored Pickup trucks.). I'd start the AT line at S7. Really, I think you'd be crazy to go tankhunting with Scatter Lasers and Shuriken Cannons. Also, AP does not make for a good definition of Tankhunting kit, with the exception of AP 1...all other APs don't really affect tanks.

2.So...you're going to discourage people from taking Heavy Flamer Sentinels, Any Chimera without a Multi-Laser, Rhinos, Most Trukks, Warbuggies and Wartrax, Penitent Engines, Hellhounds, Immolators, Devilfish, and some forms of Landspeeder...
Why? I mean...The idea that if you only have Anti-Infantry weaponry, you take more damage is abosultely ridiculous.

3.This I agree with partially. Some units just shouldn't be able to take down tanks. Grots and Gaunts for example. Unless you want to say that a Unit of Grots can immobilize a tank that Tankshocks them if they pass a Ld Test (Due to them Grotz all doing a death or glory and gumming up the vehicles engines with their bodies...)

4. No. No no no no no! A flat points increase across the board will not and will never cut it. Paying 80 points for a Trukk, or 100 points for a rhino while still only paying 120 for a battlewagon or 100 points minimum for a Wave serpent is just plain...stupid. I can't think of a word that's better to describe that idea. A wave serpent at 100 points is in all ways superior to a Rhino. It's Fast and a Skimmer, it have a better standard weapon and it comes with a secondary weapon, it can cary 2 more passengers, it has better armor and it as an energy field. Yeah...Tell me why I'd be paying the same for that as compared to a Rhino.

5.I like the idea that footsloggers get a bonus vs Anti-tank weaponry, but then Monstrous Creatures (Which are Not vehicles and would therefore fall under this ruling) would get the bonus too. Do you really want to give any of those 3 options to a Wraithlord or a Carnifex?

Kriegsherr
27-12-2006, 13:50
I'm advocating the brokeness of the vehicle rules compared to the infantry rules since beginning of 3rd ed... and while my pals first weren't convinced, now we all agree that taking a tank is a risk that either has to be calculated very well (a good cost/risk analysis or only take cheap vehicles), or is just taken for the hell of it.

I'm not this much affected as I never was a big vehicle fan, but our IG guy is a real thread head. And he always took as much LR as he could at the start of 3rd ed... well, they always got taken down quite quickly by each opposing force as I and another pal just wanted to make sure every time we played him that his ordonance wouldn't hit much before it was taken out.

Its so easy to take out a tank with deep strikers with melta-guns that it hurts.... fast moving skimmers with melta-weapons, brightlances, AssCannons and similar weapons take them out without any problems....

And the worst is a Tank heavy IG army against Necs... one game, a pals Nec force took out 3 tanks in the first or second turn without any help from heavy destroyers... he just rolled six after six.... That might not be very likely... but it happens quite often.


I for my part would rather use some of the vehicle rules also for infantry (especially ICs and MCs), for example an altered damage table, to make them less reliable... a wounded Character should suffer some penalties, and a unit that has suffered losses shouldn't just "don't care"... yet most of them don't thanks to fearless at discount prices for everyone and his dog and other strange anti-psychology rules.

Maybe it would be even enough to make the psychology rules more grave, lower the LD on most units and take away fearless or TSKNF, just giving marines and fearless troops a little bit higher ld....
Suddenly vehicles would have a very big Boost by just not suffering from psychological rules.
Yes, I think thats the problem with infantry at the moment... that its just too reliable....

I would lower all LD values by 1 point, making Fearless and TSKNF or most other rules like that just add 1 point of LD for morale tests.... so marines still had ld 8 but would suffer from it like an imperial soldier, who had only 6 and would know be in dire need of a colonels ld.
The target priority tests would get really problematic, but that is fine by me... infantry should not be that good at ignoring the target 30 meters away to shoot at a target that is in 500 meters distance.

Captain Stuart
27-12-2006, 14:55
I think there are a variety of reasons why vehicles don't seem 'right' compared to infantry. I believe one means of rectifying thing may be to reexamine vehicle upgrades and the use of unit skill upgrades like tank hunters and sharpshooters. When heavy bolters can start taking out transports fairly reliably I wonder if the designers ever thought that should happen.

As a Tau and Eldar player I think the skimmer rules are a bit good. "counts as obscured" and hit on 6s in HTH really help them survive longer than their slow Imperial and chaos counterparts in my games. It is true that skimmers will cost more, but it is very hard to balance the points with capabilities in a tactical level game like 40K.

Anvils Hammer
28-12-2006, 00:39
nah, the tank rules, in my experiance, are jsut fine.

I play an IG army with 7 tanks and 2 sentinels. Some times, my tanks die, Other time, they obliterate my enemys. I have a fairly average win/loss record with the army, its a powerfull list, and the two demolishers are very difficult for most opponents to deal with.

Having said that, Im not adverse to anyhting making my tanks more survivable!

Vaktathi
28-12-2006, 01:42
A slight suggestion here.

If people are worried about the general survivabilty of vehicles, why not just add in a 5+ save?

say you roll 5+7str for a penetrating hit against AV11, and then roll a d6 for a 5+ save against taking the hit, or use the save to determine if it will reduce the effect the hit will have (e.g. instead of Vehicle Destroyed it is Immobilized or Weapon Destroyed)

nightgant98c
28-12-2006, 05:29
I think a save would be good. It's not surefire (which is good since a tank can be destroyed on one hit), but it makes what is supposed to be a tough unit to kill actually be tough to kill. Also, troops in a transport should only be entangled on a 4+, or maybe take a Ld or I test to avoid it. It's pretty silly that you would always sit still in the open in the middle of a fire fight.

Ravenous
28-12-2006, 05:45
I've never studied the Abrams or any real tank for that matter, but...
If the tank is designed to withstand tank shells then wouldn't it be quite resistant to them?

similarly, if the tank as a weak point (Say...from above aimed at the rear of the vehicle) wouldn't it be possible that a lower grade weapon such as an RPG fired at such a point could immobilize it?

I mean, In my mind, a Tank shell is going to be primarily hitting the front and sides of the tank, the places where it'd be most heavily armored...but a single person with an RPG can fire into places that tankshells just can't reach normally...such as the underbelly and the roof.


For the most part no. If you take a tank shell head on your boned. Its kind of like wearing a flak jacket and thinking its bullet proof. It can stop 9mm rounds at long range and shrapenal but it is far from bulletproof.

An RPG wouldnt do much to the abrams just annoy the hell out of the crew.

As for the underbelly that is HIGHLY unlikely considering how fast they move you'll either blow yourself up or get squished.

Tanks in the real world cant take antitank fire and operate normally, they are either crippled or the crew is dead. I think the game reflects that well to a certain degree. Although a 6 or 5+ save wouldnt be a bad idea.


EDIT: If you take a tank shell head on then you are (or you're) boned. :P

Orbital
28-12-2006, 11:17
If you take a tank shell head on your boned.Due to lack of proper punctuation, I had to read this sentence about 8 times to get the meaning right (and the first 3 or 4 interpretations were for adults only).

Hellebore
28-12-2006, 12:29
The biggest problem I think, as I espouse in my rules forum thread on the topic, is that the vehicle rules break the 'always fail on a 1' convention - you can PENETRATE a vehicle on a 1 :eyebrows:

But you can't WOUND anything on a 1.

I think vehicles should to revert back to 'Toughness' values and armour saves.

Back in RT they had these, and I think it puts them back on a level playing field with monstrous creatures.

AV=T
10=6
11=7
12=8
13=9
14=10

This is pretty much how the AV rules work now, it's just that you add dice to the Strength of the hit, instead of comparing it to a T value. S6 weapons only need a 4+ to damage AV10, which is equivalent to T6.

The AV value would thus be a value from 1-10, rather than random 10-14.

ALso, armour saves should be included, because Monstrous Creatures get those, AND can't have their weapons blown off, or their Legs.

It also means a 1/6 chance of not damaging the vehicle at all, when rolling to wound.

Structure points then just become wounds added to the vehicles profile.

The penetration table remains virtually the same, except it would be one table, rather than two (effectively you roll to 'wound' and that is determines your penetration).

1=crew shaken
2=crew stunned
3=weapon destroyed
4=immobilised
5=vehicle destroyed
6=vehicle destroyed

With AV values you stay within the 1-10 scale as well, avoiding the stupid random armour value 13 malarky.

The AV penetration table would look like this:
S/AV
__1_2_3_4_5_6_7_8_9_10
1_4_5_6_______________
2_3_4_5_6_____________
3_2_3_4_5_6___________
4_2_2_3_4_5_6_________
5_2_2_2_3_4_5_6_______
6_2_2_2_2_3_4_5_6_____
7_2_2_2_2_2_3_4_5_6___
8_2_2_2_2_2_2_3_4_5_6_
9_2_2_2_2_2_2_2_3_4_5_6
0_2_2_2_2_2_2_2_2_3_4_5_6

From this thread:
http://warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=48314


Hellebore

Kriegsherr
28-12-2006, 13:32
From this thread:
http://warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=48314


Hellebore

sounds like a very good solution (I also thinkered with in the past).

Only thing: I would either drop the damage result table or expand it unto MCs and ICs..... and I would give the vehicles wounds representing the size of the vehicle. so a small vehicle like the speeder would get 2 Wound, a medium sized vehicle like the rhino 3 and a big vehicle like the Leman Russ 4 (or maybe even 5 for the Land Raider and Monolith)...

This would really make the field even for comparison with a Carnifex or PL...

Metaphorazine
28-12-2006, 14:03
Nice solution, but it does seem to dispose of vehicle explodes completely. Much as I hate my trukks becomming rolling balls of flames, it would be missed if it didn't happen at all... :D

Kriegsherr
28-12-2006, 14:59
Nice solution, but it does seem to dispose of vehicle explodes completely. Much as I hate my trukks becomming rolling balls of flames, it would be missed if it didn't happen at all... :D

Well, if you ask me, the advanced rules should have vehicle AND infantry damage tables... but in a different section at the back of the rulebook. So that players can play with them or without, based on their expierience, the detail they want to add to their games and armysize.

I don't see a reason why a vehicle can get a weapon shot off, but an infanterist never looses an arm or an eye.

of course, only MCs and Characters would have to take a roll on the "single creature" table, there would be separate tables for squads that would affect the whole squad... everything else would just be too much.

hiveminion
28-12-2006, 15:07
I don't see a reason why a vehicle can get a weapon shot off, but an infanterist never looses an arm or an eye.

That would be nice, you could put a token beside every infanterist that misses something: a red one for a missing eyeball, a blue one for a missing leg, a green one for a missing arm...The table will collapse under the weight of the tokens! It would take days to figure out who misses what and how this'll effect him. I'm not sure there are that many players who'll want to go to that level of detail; I'm pretty sure IG, Nid and Ork players are not among them.

"Dude, where's your Slugga Boyz squad?"
"Over there, under that pile of counters!"

EDIT: woops, missed you're EDIT! You must have a sixth sense to see my post coming...

Metaphorazine
28-12-2006, 15:26
I just mean that I'm not liking how my trukks get taken down (or even explode into a gigantic ball of flame) by what seems like (fluffwise) a single round from an M16. I dunno, after reading the thread about 2nd edition, I think I just want modifiers in 40k, it'd make everything seem more organic, I think. *shrug*

Kriegsherr
28-12-2006, 15:43
That would be nice, you could put a token beside every infanterist that misses something: a red one for a missing eyeball, a blue one for a missing leg, a green one for a missing arm...The table will collapse under the weight of the tokens! It would take days to figure out who misses what and how this'll effect him. I'm not sure there are that many players who'll want to go to that level of detail; I'm pretty sure IG, Nid and Ork players are not among them.

"Dude, where's your Slugga Boyz squad?"
"Over there, under that pile of counters!"

EDIT: woops, missed you're EDIT! You must have a sixth sense to see my post coming...


Sorry dude, I was just leaving the thread when I noticed this little slip of mine... I would be the last advocating on-single-trooper base actions, beeing bored to death by the 2nd ed close combat phase (even IF it was really funny sometimes when a single guardsman held off multiple chaos marines armed with twin swords by just rolling so much higher that they couldn't ever hit him :))

I would say, this table could even bring some psychological stuff back to the game.
So, here are my ideas for the hit tables that could be used for single creatures, infantry sqads and vehicles. Every time a Wound is lost, a roll on one of this tables is necessary.

The destroyed vehicle table comes into play each time a vehicle is reduced to zero wounds or a 6 is rolled on the hit tables.


"single creature"

1 - Shaken: the Trooper is shaken and can't fire any weapon next turn, but receives a +1 on their cover saves.
2 - Stunned: Can't move or fire a weapon next turn, but receives a +1 on their cover saves.
3 - unconscious: counts as stunned next turn. Counts as stunned all following turn until a 4,5 or 6 is rolled at the start of a turn.
4 - Weapon destroyed: The weapon was hit, the arm was shot off, the weapon is overheated or jammed. One weapon of the opponents choice counts as destroyed.
5 - immobilized: The legs of the creature are broken or shot off. May not move again for the rest of the game
6 - head shot: A very lucky shot hit a weak spot, either the head, the power supply of the armour or some other thing. The Creature is counted as beeing instant killed. Creatures with a natural thoughness of 6 just loose 2 wounds instead of one.

"infantry squads"

1 - Careful: the squad is getting more careful because of the casualties and can't fire any weapon next turn, but receives a +1 on their cover saves.
2 - Pinned: the whole squad can't move or fire a weapon next turn, but receives a +1 on their cover saves.
3 - morale damage: the squad suffers from a -1 penalty on their ld for the rest of the game. cumulative.
4 - Weapon destroyed: A weapon was hit, the arm was shot off, the weapon is overheated or jammed. One weapon of the squad of the opponents choice counts as destroyed. this can destroy special or heavy weapons or normal squad weapons.
5 - slowed down: Some squad member got wounded and are now carried by their comrades, or the squad suffers from fatigue. Always counts as beeing in difficult terrain for all movement, and halfes distance if in difficult terrain.
6 - out of control: A wounded trooper loses control over his weapon, or is blinded by rage and tries to kill his comrades. The opponent may choose one trooper in the squad that got killed this turn and make a shooting or closecombat attack against his own unit using his stats, weapons and the full amount of attacks/shots.


"vehicle"

1 - Shaken: the vehicle crew is shaken and can't fire any weapon next turn
2 - Stunned: Can't move or fire a weapon next turn
3 - out of control: moves 2d6" in a direction that is determined with a deviation dice next turn. Fast vehicles move 4d6". May not fire any weapon this turn.
4 - Weapon destroyed: The weapon was hit and destroyed. One weapon of the opponents choice counts as destroyed.
5 - immobilized: The tracks were blown off, or the engine was destroyed. May not move again for the rest of the game
6 - Destroyed: A very lucky shot hit a weak spot. The Vehicle is counted as beeing destroyed.


"Vehicle destroyed table"

1-3 Vehicle Crew killed. Only a Wreckage remains.
5-6 Engine explodes. All infantry in d6" take a hit on a 4+
6 Massive explosion. All infantry in 6" take a hit on a 4+

Derling
28-12-2006, 16:07
I think they're fine, its just some upgrades for tanks that are broken (holo fields and the monolith come to mind...)

that's a pretty accurate statement, though I would say that it extends to most vehicle upgrades in most armies. Tau upgrades are very nice for their price and I don't know a single rhino user who doesn't have AT LEAST smoke launchers and extra armor as standard issue. The same can be said of Orky armor plates and grot riggas.

I think the vehicle rules are "broken" so far only in that ALL rules grow and break over time to the point where revision is needed to avoid game stagnation. The fact that rhinos still come to many tables in bulk,leman russes are feared enough that people take lots of guns to kill them, and Falcons fully kitted out cost over 200pts tells me the problem is not as big as is commonly mention on the internet.(to this last point, virtually EVERYTHING ever is commonly mentioned on the internet, For ever "Vehicles are too mean post, there is a corresponding "vehicles not mean enough post")

:cool:

UnRiggable
28-12-2006, 16:24
I am just going to state my opinion here, not facts of any kind.
Sure the Vehicle Rolling tables are a bit screwed up. Maybe they do favor some vehicles over the other. But the way you guys are talking about fixing seems....wrong. Giving a toughness value to a tank isn't right because we are talking about a non-living thing here. That means that it only takes one well placed shot to the engine (or "machine spirit") to knock it out.

I don't think tanks should have structure points. If they do, there should be a way, be it a very improbable one, to knock them all out with one shot. And if there are structure points, then they should vary on how many are lost based on the strength of the weapon (a more powerful weapon is going to create more damage than a weaker one). My idea is that the higher the strength, the more damage it does (not the easier it'll damage something) so to include some kind of 'hit points' type of thing would be awesome.

The reason I think you guys are saying it's broken is because you are not using vehicles correctly. Vehicles are meant to be used together, so the idea is to have several chimeras (or whatever your transport is) creating a wall of some kind while they go toward enemy lines (so their side armor is not targetted). Think about it, when one tank is going faster than the rest of their army toward the enemy it's no surprise that tons of shots are going to be fired at it, and it's going to get destroyed.

PS Remember that scene in 'Saving Private Ran' when they see a tank going through a field and all of a sudden a rocket is fired at it and it explodes?

azimaith
28-12-2006, 16:55
As for the underbelly that is HIGHLY unlikely considering how fast they move you'll either blow yourself up or get squished.

Explosive launching devices come with safety systems that prevent ammo from exploding when it strikes too close. For some its simply a line tethered to the launcher that when it reaches max extension it yanks out and arms the warhead, for some like launched grenades it counts numbers of grenade revolutions and the like. The rpg would just bounce off and not do anything, except maybe smack you in the face.



Tanks in the real world cant take antitank fire and operate normally, they are either crippled or the crew is dead. I think the game reflects that well to a certain degree. Although a 6 or 5+ save wouldnt be a bad idea.
Well theres not anti-tank fire to step over every 3 feet. When a tank runs into something like AT fire that it can't take out they stop and infantry deal with it, then they continue on. This is out of the scope of a 40k game thus problematic. Combine that with the silly amount of anti-tank fire armies have, the problem becomes clear. So you either need some sort of sav or a whole ass load less anti-tank weapons. And if you want people to stop taking so much anti-tank weapons then its all going to go back to who alot of those anti-tank weapons are aimed for, Marines.

I think just giving tanks a save vs stun/shaken if they're slow/tracked is best. Tanks can survive longer with that because they can just return fire or get the hell out of the way rather than sitting them brainlessly. Its no wonder they removed veteran skills for tanks, every crew just craps itself as soon as their paint gets damaged.



The reason I think you guys are saying it's broken is because you are not using vehicles correctly.

Regardless of whether it may be true or not, saying stuff like this is almost guaranteed to draw ire from forumites. Using tanks correctly depends on the situation.



Vehicles are meant to be used together, so the idea is to have several chimeras (or whatever your transport is) creating a wall of some kind while they go toward enemy lines (so their side armor is not targetted). Think about it, when one tank is going faster than the rest of their army toward the enemy it's no surprise that tons of shots are going to be fired at it, and it's going to get destroyed.

This isn't how tanks are used in the real world, or in 40k. For one, a wall of tanks is going to suffer horribly in difficult terrain in the game. Second, as soon as someone pokes a whole in that wall you've lost your side armor protection and your going to get greased, third, your entire IG army behind your wall is blind as a bat with your tanks moving forward. Tanks in 40k are designed to be used together, yes, but with infantry support thats responsive and capable. Tanks are also not victims of difficult terrain. Tracks were there to cross the mud trenches of WW1, in later days a tank getting caught on a pile of barrels it rolled over is pretty laughable. I've tried the tank wall, it doesn't work well, especially with 12 front armor.



PS Remember that scene in 'Saving Private Ran' when they see a tank going through a field and all of a sudden a rocket is fired at it and it explodes?
So what? Remember that scene in private ryan where people who get shot get hurt 100% of the time, rather than on a 4+, they don't even get an armor save. I'm telling you, Private ryan is a nerfed army, we need a new private ryan codex before orks obviously. No armor saves, no toughness, sheesh.

izandral
28-12-2006, 17:27
i read once that GW made tank less useful to prevent them from dominating the field as in previous edition (i cant tell , haven't played much before 4th), and instead favor infantry

on a personal note i think the rules are fine , they fit with the rest. Sure a monstrous creature gets saves and many wounds but they move slow , don't have as much firepower as a tank and can get wounded with rather low-str weapons.
Dev squad , well they don't move at all so they're LOS is easy to predict and they can also be killed with about any standard infantry weapons but on the plus side they are pretty tough and bring a lot of firepower
As for tanks well they move fast , usually have huge amount of firepower and are immune to low-str weapons but heavy weapons can kill them on a lucky shot

seems to me like it all balance not to bad together. true on average a tank won't last long , 1 or 2 turns , but require still a good deal of effort to deal with that leaves the rest of the army rather safe

as with about every unit in the game they won't win alone the game as IRL , can't win a war just with tanks/aircraft/infantry , they need to work together

Gensuke626
28-12-2006, 22:22
Technically you can win a game in 40k with just infantry...Tyranids do it all the time...I have a friend who plays tankless guard and it's pretty scary... (Light Infantry and Drop Troops...)

azimaith
29-12-2006, 00:53
Technically you can win a game of 40k with just troops choices, doesn't mean we should make all elites/heavies/fast attack/hq choices bite.

And yes troops only (combat patrol)

Gensuke626
29-12-2006, 01:01
Not saying that all elites/heavies/fast attack/hq choices must bite. Not saying that all Tanks bite. I like tanks. I really do, and as jammy and unreliable as they are...I don't see a huge problem with them. It's safer to take more troops, but not always more effective. In the case of orks, Trukks are the best thing in the game. In the case of Eldar...Well...Eldar Tanks are just the best tanks in the game.

Standard land vehicles could do with some buffing up, but not the broad sweeping changes that some want to enforce. I like the save vs stunned idea...besides that I think the other ideas are really just wishlisting without trying to figure out an effective way to make tanks more viable....

Lord Macharius
29-12-2006, 02:21
I think the vehicle rules are more or less ok as they are. It makes sense that a cheap to produce transport (rhinos, trukks etc) doesnt last for 6 turns of constant barrage. I think that the one tweak that all armies could do with is something that upgrades your armour value (ie. extra armour doing exactly what it says on the tin!) even if only by one point.

Vet.Sister
29-12-2006, 02:28
What about trying to herd players into using AT weapons vs. tanks?
Something like..... Strength 6 (or less) weapons can only cause glances regardless of armor value. Now obviously the weapon would still have to be strong enough to hurt what you're shooting at.... I wouldn't want a badly worded rule to allow grot blastas or las-guns to glance a LandRaider :P

Do you think this would help the AV10 open-topped vehicles?

Gensuke626
29-12-2006, 03:03
I personally don't think the Penetrating hit roll is the problem. The problem to me lies in the fact that any hit that even glances the armor is going to get the tank to at least stop shooting... I think that like a glancing 1 or 2 should just plain not do anything. that might be extreme...maybe just a glancing 1...but basically make it so there's a chance that a glancing hit literally does Nothing.

sort of like giving tracked and wheeled vehicles a 4+ save vs shaken and Stunned results.

Hellebore
29-12-2006, 10:44
sounds like a very good solution (I also thinkered with in the past).

Only thing: I would either drop the damage result table or expand it unto MCs and ICs..... and I would give the vehicles wounds representing the size of the vehicle. so a small vehicle like the speeder would get 2 Wound, a medium sized vehicle like the rhino 3 and a big vehicle like the Leman Russ 4 (or maybe even 5 for the Land Raider and Monolith)...

This would really make the field even for comparison with a Carnifex or PL...

If you scroll down the link page, you'll see a table for MCs;) as well as descriptions of what they would do.

I personally think that vehicles should have an Armour Save as well, otherwise they lose a dice roll that MCs get.

It also wouldn't actually make the vehicle much more survivable, because a land raider with AV14 and a 3+ armour save will very rarely get to save against AT weapons anyway.

Hellebore

Gen_eV
29-12-2006, 11:56
If they were to change, I'd like to see them getting a standard infantry-style profile,acting more like monstrous creatures. Cover all vehicles with one overarching set of movement/shooting rules as infantry are, but with various types, in the same manner as cavalry/jump infantry and the like. Walkers would all become infantry, with sentinels and the like thieving Terminator move-and-shoot, and dreadnoughts becoming Monstrous creatures.

It'd make the game as a whole flow a lot more smoothly, and really fix the current massive difference between the mechanisms for Walkers and MCs, which I see as the biggest issue with the current rules.

Kriegsherr
29-12-2006, 12:07
If you scroll down the link page, you'll see a table for MCs;) as well as descriptions of what they would do.

I personally think that vehicles should have an Armour Save as well, otherwise they lose a dice roll that MCs get.

It also wouldn't actually make the vehicle much more survivable, because a land raider with AV14 and a 3+ armour save will very rarely get to save against AT weapons anyway.

Hellebore

Well, a tank isn't meant to be survivable against AT fire (at least if its armour penetration is high enough to go through the armour)... The only thing that can save a tank against a weapon strong enough to penetrate their armour is the firing/armourplate angle and luck... if the shot doesn't comes straight ahead, projectiles have a very high chance to just bounce off (even if they would go through the armour else), much like the way a flak jacket CAN deflect bullets sometimes. And even special AT Weapons like energy weapons would have to go through more armour because of the angle, and loose more energy, so they maybe even doesn't penetrate the whole armour.
and of course theres always the chance that nothing important is hit after penetrating the armour... or that to much energy was lost in the process to still inflict any damage.

But Thats what is represented by the toughness... the structural integrity of the vehicle, the hardness of its inner components, the thoughness of its crew against damage, shrapnel and fear.
I would take the armour save to represent the armour plates.

So I suggest the following System:

AV14:2+
AV13:3+
AV12:4+
AV11:5+
AV10:6+

While the thoughness should be given, much like the wounds, depending on the size of the vehicle.

tiny (speeder, Vyper, trakks, buggies): T6 2W
small (trukk, the-new-DK-Vehicle-i-forgot-the-name): T6 W3
Medium (Rhino, Chimera, Dreads): T7 W3
Big (Leman Russ, Defiler): T7 W4
Huge (Land Raider, Monolith): T8 W4

Now I would create some modifiers to make the whole thing reflect the current settings and the differences of the vehicles more:

Heavy structure: +1T -->I would give this to the Leman Russ and Monolith
Open Topped: -1T, -1 AS on all facings that are not completly armoured (so for example a vehicle can be closed against direct fire from the front, but not from the sides or rear. ---> this means an open topped tiny or small vehicle CAN be Autokilled.... they are just small enough.
Living Metal: +1W ---> For the monolith and maybe some demon machines?
Shields: a unmodifiable save... this could represent the void shields and ork energy fields.

What do you think of that system? unbalancing? not representing the vehicle very well? Ok?


On the difference between living things and vehicles... I don't see it.
I mean, necs for example, or marines to some extent, are also more vehicles than living beeings... should they get an AV of 8 or 9 now because of this?

Of course they don't get the AV... not because they are "infanterists", but because it doesn't matters. Its just a different system only needed because some people like the quite vague split into "vehicles" and "living beeings"... necs and tomb spyders are not living beeings, and the eldar phantom constructs als aren't... why do they get it?

In the end, a Carnifex takes the same roles in a nid army as a dread in a SM army.... they are constructed with some very identical prinipals in mind, having two legs, some arms that have built in weapons, having an "engine", "orifices" to resupply "fuel" and throw out "used fuel", having armour plates over a strengthened inner structure.
The techniques to build them, the fuel they need to operate, the inner functions and the materials they are built from might differ somewhat, but regardless wether they are made up from flesh, bone and chitin or iron, steel and adamantium, in the end they work in a similar way on the battlefield and shoul be treated in a similar way. The difference between a Carnifex and a dread shouldn't be bigger than between an infanterist and a bike driver.

hiveminion
29-12-2006, 12:29
I think the combination of armour save with toughness and wounds would make vehicles hugely overpowered. In fact, the only real downside that vehicles have, apart from high points cost, is that one shot can kill it.
I think that, if vehicles need a bit more survivability, it should not be in the form of wounds. It's unbalancing.
I think that the problem with vehicles is a) the large amount of anti-tank guns found in armies these days, and b) the fact that you only need to get a roll on the AP table to render the vehicle useless on a turn.
To make vehicles a bit more resilient, I'd suggest to increase the points cost of anti-tank guns, and change the AP table from a d6 one to a 2d6 one.

The glancing table could look like this:
Result on 2d6:
2-6 - No result
7 - Minor hit: Vehicle may not fire its main weaponry next turn
8 - Shaken: as normal
9 - Stunned: as normal
10 - Weapon Destroyed: as normal
11 - Immobilized: as normal
12 - Destroyed: as normal

Penetration table n 2d6:

2 - No Result
3 - Minor Hit
4 - Shaken
5-7 - Stunned
8 - Weapon Destroyed
9 - Immobilized
10 - Destroyed
11-12 - Vehicle Explodes

Ordnance Penetrating on 2d6:

2 - Minor Hit
3-4 - Shaken
5-7 - Stunned
8 - Weapon Destroyed
9 - Immobilized
10 - Destroyed
11 - Vehicle Explodes
12 - Vehicle Annihilated

I'm not sure whether this'll work out in a balancing way, but it combines survivability with the chance of destruction with a single shot, which, IMO, is what vehicles should be: resilient, yet fragile.

Think I'll playtest this.

Hellebore
29-12-2006, 13:28
I think the combination of armour save with toughness and wounds would make vehicles hugely overpowered. In fact, the only real downside that vehicles have, apart from high points cost, is that one shot can kill it.
I think that, if vehicles need a bit more survivability, it should not be in the form of wounds. It's unbalancing.
I think that the problem with vehicles is a) the large amount of anti-tank guns found in armies these days, and b) the fact that you only need to get a roll on the AP table to render the vehicle useless on a turn.
To make vehicles a bit more resilient, I'd suggest to increase the points cost of anti-tank guns, and change the AP table from a d6 one to a 2d6 one.


It's no more unbalancing than having a T7 W5 2+Sv regenerating carnifex.

In effect, each vehicle would act just like a monstrous creature, and if that makes them unbalanced, it says more about the rules for monstrous creatures than it does for vehicles...

Hellebore

izandral
29-12-2006, 14:37
carnifex don't move 12 '' a turn , and they don't possess up to 5 different weapons some of witch are ordnance that not only are high strength , long range but also low AP. for about the same point cost a leman russ can do a lot more damage than a MC but is more subject to luck for it's survival/usefulness

Kriegsherr
29-12-2006, 14:41
carnifex don't move 12 '' a turn , and they don't possess up to 5 different weapons some of witch are ordnance that not only are high strength , long range but also low AP. for about the same point cost a leman russ can do a lot more damage than a MC but is more subject to luck for it's survival/usefulness

Leman Russes don't fight in CC and only can fire the Ordonance OR the other guns.... and of course, in order to fire any gun, can only move 6" like the fex

the Fex on the other side can also fire two guns at the same time, one of them has the big template and also S8.

And of course, depending on the build, it is a lot cheaper than a russ.


But granted, if this change should be applied across the board, a re-evaluation of vehicle point costs should be done.... its not like an FAQ would mean the End of the World :rolleyes:

izandral
29-12-2006, 15:16
a fex below 150 points don't make much of a match to a tank and putting a carnifex in CC is rather hard , they're slow and people usually just avoid them , not that there is much reason , unless built almost only for CC a carnifex will get a hard time even killing a 10 man tactical squad , and if it's just a CC monster then people will definitely just move away

they can also be killed with small arms fire if lucky , tank still require AT weapons , even if they're rather common

hiveminion
29-12-2006, 17:09
But the fact that vehicles can be destroyed with a lucky hit is far more realistic (and can be more fun) than wounds. They are untrustworthy, plasteel/metal/wraithbone constructions, more often than not working on flammable fuels/gas/whatever. The AV system, combined with the AP table is a good way to resemble this, it's just a bit too easy to disable vehicles.
Every lascannon/missile/anti-tank gun has a chance to destroy a vehicle. It could hit the fuel tank, or the crew compartment, or just blow a huge hole in it. In real life, vehicles are also pretty fragile. Wounds just don't fit, and don't make sense.
Comparing a Fex with a tank with wounds is right fluff-wise, but game-wise there are many, many differences. MCs don't move 12", don't carry twin Lascannons or Assault Cannons or whatever, and are mostly designed for CC.
Yes the Carnifex can shoot two guns a turn, but those guns are uncomparable to Lascannons or Battlecannons, because the AP is so much lower.

stecal
29-12-2006, 17:44
I still think that most of the problems with vehicles can be fixed by making the front armor a line across the front of the vehicle and not an X thru its center. It is side shots that kill my chimeras, not front shots vs AV 12. The fact that a lascannon 48" away at a 45 degree angle to my front can get a side shot is unrealistic. At a 45 degree angle hit the armor thinkness would be doubled and more likely the shot would just richochet off.

Vaktathi
29-12-2006, 18:23
I still think that most of the problems with vehicles can be fixed by making the front armor a line across the front of the vehicle and not an X thru its center. It is side shots that kill my chimeras, not front shots vs AV 12. The fact that a lascannon 48" away at a 45 degree angle to my front can get a side shot is unrealistic. At a 45 degree angle hit the armor thinkness would be doubled and more likely the shot would just richochet off.

For a ballistic weapon you would be correct, for a Lascannon, something that is essentially firing high intensity light, angle wont matter as much because its power has already been converted to energy, unlike a ballistic weapon who's power is converted to energy upon impact (which it bleeds off at a 45* angle)

Rowenstin
29-12-2006, 23:05
But the fact that vehicles can be destroyed with a lucky hit is far more realistic (and can be more fun) than wounds. They are untrustworthy, plasteel/metal/wraithbone constructions, more often than not working on flammable fuels/gas/whatever. The AV system, combined with the AP table is a good way to resemble this, it's just a bit too easy to disable vehicles.

It's funny you mention wraithbone when wraithlods exist. And monstrous creatures don't have fuel tanks or ammo stored, but have brains, hearts, and other juicy things that are rather detrimental if removed or pierced by a krak missile.

IMO Epic solves the this situation rather nicely. War machines (superheavy tanks, titans, etc) have a Damage capacity, comparable to Wounds, but have a small chance of suffering a critical hit, which in turn normally means a roll in a table (unique of every war machine) that can mean extra "wounds", imprtant systems destroyed, etc.

Hellebore
29-12-2006, 23:20
You can apply the same argument to large creatures - a lucky hit can puncture their heart or brain, or sever tendons in the leg, immobilising them etc.

Hellebore

wingedserpant
30-12-2006, 00:57
Tanks are pretty rubbish. The points spent on a tank are usually better spent on infantry.

Due to it being able to be taken out by one shot make it much more vunerable than infantry. A dreadnaught will be destroyed easily by a lascannon whereas a five man marine squad with a heavy weapon will not.

Gensuke626
30-12-2006, 05:04
Winged Serpent...it's all a matter of prospective.

Tanks aren't as good as infantry, but they're not rubbish, especially Eldar Tanks.

pwrgmrguard
30-12-2006, 05:22
at vaktathi: he's saying on a two d plane - meaning front to back and side to side, the lascannon hits at 45 degree angle, the thickness is doubled and all.

a Ballistic weapon it would also gain kinetic energy back from gravity until it reaches it's terminal velocity when the force would max out. That is if it is given enough time *cough*indirect*cough*. Also a laser bleeds energy without gaining back from being dispersed by the air and particles within it. It becomes less focused and so loses power. Lasers also do not convert to energy, they convert to heat. All in all a ballistic HEAT shell would indeed be generally more effective and reliable when tank hunting.

Thank you PopSci.

azimaith
30-12-2006, 05:50
Leman Russes don't fight in CC and only can fire the Ordonance OR the other guns.... and of course, in order to fire any gun, can only move 6" like the fex

the Fex on the other side can also fire two guns at the same time, one of them has the big template and also S8.

And of course, depending on the build, it is a lot cheaper than a russ.


But granted, if this change should be applied across the board, a re-evaluation of vehicle point costs should be done.... its not like an FAQ would mean the End of the World :rolleyes:

Carnifex' bite in CC (Its essentially a 2 attack powerfist for 80+points), and their guns are not comparable to a battlecannon. Battlecannons make marines soil their armor, a barbed strangler is like a light breeze with AP5.

And a fex with a VC+BS is 140 points at bs2 3+ save, 4 wounds. Comparing vehicles to monstrous creatures is flawed as they do not perform the same role and can not do the same type of damage. If your going to at least compare two creatures, at least compare them to something that makes actual sense, like a wraithlord v leman russ, because in terms of firepower they're much closer. The next time a bolter harms a leman russ from the front armor is the same time you can compare it to a carnifex.


It's no more unbalancing than having a T7 W5 2+Sv regenerating carnifex.

In effect, each vehicle would act just like a monstrous creature, and if that makes them unbalanced, it says more about the rules for monstrous creatures than it does for vehicles...

Hellebore
A t7, 5w 2+ save carnifex is 181 points with 2 basic rending claws. A russ is not. Even with a hull HB+sponson Hbs, and it actually has 3 HBs+a battlecannon rather than two worthless close combat upgrades.

People are missing that giving tanks armor saves, especially armor saves like 2+, would be like giving a big middle finger to all tyranid players. As much as I love only glancing with venom cannons I don't see how making my only glancing hits and adding in a 2+ save for them to ignore it with would help.

hiveminion
30-12-2006, 11:37
You can apply the same argument to large creatures - a lucky hit can puncture their heart or brain, or sever tendons in the leg, immobilising them etc.

Hellebore

That's why they have wounds. Wraithlords don't have hearts. Carnifexes and other Tyranids are rock hard, and won't go down by something that would normally kill them.
An organic construct is far harder to disable in a single shot than a vehicle of comparable size. A vehicle is a parody of a living being. It contains a complex and fragile mechanism, and if one part of that construction is destroyed, the vehicle will be severely damaged. If a vehicle's armour is penetrated, chances are huge that it will blow up, or be immobilized. A tough monster is a) harder to hit critically because he's not as motionless as a vehicle, b) his vital places are smaller (e.g. a brain is smaller than a tank), and c) most can take A LOT of punishment because of their tough hide, blind rage or regenerating capabilities.
Cripple a Fexes' leg, and it'll regenerate, or he'll crawl on on his remaining 5 limbs.
Try hitting a Squiggoths brain while it's running all over the place, swinging it's head left and right. That's a lot harder than hitting a tank, the only problem with the tank is to penetrate it's armour, which, as has already been agreed, is a bit too easy currently.

izandral
30-12-2006, 16:37
i did a few math for the fun of seeing how easy a tank is to kill compared to a MC in this example a carnifex T7 W5 2+SV
for a certain kill you would need 9 lascannons shot fired with BS4 to get rid of the carnifex
on a AV14 tank 9 lascannons gives you 2 hits , half of those should be glancing and half penetrating and that does not mean the tank is destroyed, if it's immobilized than at least you get a return shot the next turn , or maybe it won't be able to shoot next turn but can still get away or a weapon destroyed , it reduce it's effectiveness but is far from rendering the tank useless
then you add all the options that can change that damage roll depending on the army and tank and it gets even better , while the carnifex is dead

and in both case 9 lascannons shot is not a small amount of firepower ,of course the tank can be killed first shot with a lucky roll , witch balance the fact that it's firepower will usually be better than the MC

azimaith
30-12-2006, 17:10
i did a few math for the fun of seeing how easy a tank is to kill compared to a MC in this example a carnifex T7 W5 2+SV
for a certain kill you would need 9 lascannons shot fired with BS4 to get rid of the carnifex

There is no such thing as a certain kill. A T7 5 wound regen fex could be killed in as little as 5 shots or never die at all.



on a AV14 tank 9 lascannons gives you 2 hits , half of those should be glancing and half penetrating and that does not mean the tank is destroyed, if it's immobilized than at least you get a return shot the next turn , or maybe it won't be able to shoot next turn but can still get away or a weapon destroyed , it reduce it's effectiveness but is far from rendering the tank useless
then you add all the options that can change that damage roll depending on the army and tank and it gets even better , while the carnifex is dead

and in both case 9 lascannons shot is not a small amount of firepower ,of course the tank can be killed first shot with a lucky roll , witch balance the fact that it's firepower will usually be better than the MC
Well thats what i've been saying all along. Not only is that fex more expensive than a russ its got a huge amount less firepower, hell that fex is more expensive than a 3 HB russ if it only had rending claws.

izandral
30-12-2006, 17:26
There is no such thing as a certain kill. A T7 5 wound regen fex could be killed in as little as 5 shots or never die at all.


well let's just say a statistic certain kill then

azimaith
30-12-2006, 17:39
There is still no such thing as a statistically certain kill. What you mean to say is that on average 9 lascannons will inflict 5 wounds or so on a carnifex.

pwrgmrguard
30-12-2006, 23:19
but the problem is a monstrous creature can still fire even after it takes a wound. I wouldn't have a problem if there were a few results of does nothing on the damage charts for vehicles. i think it is a problem there isnt. If a missile glances off the front of a tank, the crew won't drop waht their doing and stop shooting but retain enough sense to drive (Crew Shaken). THey'd not do either or be able to do both. I could understand something like "can only fire one weapon that is not it's main weapon" as a result of damage on a tank. Tank's might harder to "Kill", but a tank is rendered unusable on a turn to turn basis far more than a monstrous creature. Any result of 3 or more on the glancing chart or 2 or more on the penetrating chart makes them unable to anything, preventing them from reacting or changing the situation that caused them to be useless for that turn. An MC can always move or shoot or attack at it's full capacity until every single one of it's wounds are gone. If anything whatsoever gets a glancing or penetrating hit, the vehicle can perform at best half capacity, only moving.

izandral
30-12-2006, 23:36
and there is the balancing part , a tank shoots more than a MC and is harder to ''wound'' but can more easily be disabled with a lucky roll

pwrgmrguard
31-12-2006, 00:56
but i am saying temporarily disablng adn permanent disabling (Crew stunned through destroyed) happens far more that anyone would think. Some one do the numbers of how long it would take a lascannon to get a crew stunned or better on a tank. If over 5 turns a tank is stunned or worse every turn, and a MC is wounded once a turn over 5 turns, what did the tank do?? Sat there and got shot. Never had a chance to earn VP's. What did the MC do?? shoot and move hopefully earning back it's VP's. I am saying it is way easier to make a tank unuseful than an MC. And if a lucky shot can disable a tank why shouldn't a lucky shot be able to kill or disable (immobilised or weapon destroyed) an MC? it still has vulnerable points like the knees, elbows, neck. Also the statement "A tank shoots more than an MC" is not necessarily true. Tanks with only one or two weapons, like a vindicator or a Russ without sponsons or a basilisk or a predator without sponsons or a chimera or rhino or razorback or a griffon or many other forgeworld tanks(siege tanks) can shoot only one or two weapons. A Russ WITH sponsons can choose to shoot three weapons or ONE. A Basilisk can shoot wither one or two.same with a vindicator, one or two weapons. Many tanks shooting two or three wepons a turn are using low strength weapons (Aside from LR's and some Pred's). SO saying that a tank be far easier to kill balances them against MC's is false in my experience. On the table in My Experience, setting devastators to destroy tanks is far more effective than telling the same devastators to go kill the carnifex. I feel that tanks should be harder to make unuseful. Not harder to destroy.

azimaith
31-12-2006, 03:10
This is why I advocated the 4+ save against crew stunned results and the 2+ save against crew shaken results for slow (as in without the Fast rule) tracked vehicles. That way it wasn't just get hit and do nothing useful for a turn all the time, which is the biggest problem with tanks now.

pwrgmrguard
31-12-2006, 04:18
exactly. Something like that would be soo helpful and balancing. Do you have any idea how infuriating having a Vanquisher staring at a Landraider and Pred Annihilator and being shaken and stunned every damn turn is?? THere needs to be some kind of "great you hit the tank, but you also failed to do anything but ruin the paint job" effect on the damage charts.

izandral
31-12-2006, 04:25
actually i think that hitting but not glancing/penetrating would represent the ''great you hit the tank, but you also failed to do anything but ruin the paint job''

if me opponent uses his tanks to keep mine from doing nothing than that just gets me that much closer to a win , i don't have a habit of building armylist centered on a single units success and in that case the opponent is also wasting his tank to keep mine down

pwrgmrguard
31-12-2006, 04:30
to me any weapon has to go through those, but there is a chance a penetrating or glancing hit does nothing once it breaks the armor. goes through and through like an armor piercing bullet. MC's have four things that someone has to pass to kill it: hitting, Wounding, # of wounds, armor save.
Tanks: hitting, AV. Two "defenses" versus 4 with comparable damage dealing capabilities. I say that tanks are getting hosed by the rules.

izandral
31-12-2006, 05:47
i don't agree with the ''comparable damage dealing capabilities'' you can wound a MC with bolters , lots of them but still , no way you'll get an AV11,12,13 or 14 tank with that so that leaves just about the rear AV of 10 on some tank.If you let your opponent get shots there you're in a lot more trouble than just losing the tank anyway

izandral
31-12-2006, 05:54
just to be clear , basilisk , griffon and whirlwind are not tanks , they're artillery pieces that you should keep well hidden and thus hard to hit

chimera , razorback , rhino , waveserpent , devilsfish and probably 1 or 2 i forgot are not tanks either. They're troop transport, in some case with aspiration of tankhood but still , they're not designed to have maximum firepower or much resiliency for that matter.
in my case if they survive to my second turn i'll be happy cause they will have gotten my troops where i want them , after that i don't really care what happens to them

fwacho
31-12-2006, 06:09
teh vehicle rules really come into their own when you get at least 10 armor values on the table and statistics begin to take afftect (the closer to 30 the better)
yes monoliths and falcons are supposed to be a pain in the neck (a one off lascnanon hit shouldn't be able to do the job... 6 of them fireing over the course of two turns is fine however. you do need to devote an entire turn to shooting / clawing one down.
the vehilce rules are fine... the only thing that would be nice would be for shaken to ofer the option of either shooting or moving in next turn but not both (eldar players would move, marine and IG would shoot)

the_raptor
31-12-2006, 06:22
chimera , razorback , rhino , waveserpent , devilsfish and probably 1 or 2 i forgot are not tanks either. They're troop transport, in some case with aspiration of tankhood but still , they're not designed to have maximum firepower or much resiliency for that matter.

No they are tanks. They are not Main Battle Tanks, but still tanks. Tanks should not die to the equivalent of a heavy machine gun, especially if they explode and kill the squad inside more effectively then the machine gun could have, or pin them down so they can be picked off next turn.

And the skimmer tanks are much more survivable than the others. Which is the problem. Only skimmer tanks are really survivable/useful. And most of them have wargear to counteract there one problem (crashing when stunned while moving fast).

You are better off flying across the battlefield with a jet strapped to your back, braving the horrors of the warp, or imitating a meteor, then you are riding in most transports.

Hellebore
31-12-2006, 06:38
Carnifex' bite in CC (Its essentially a 2 attack powerfist for 80+points), and their guns are not comparable to a battlecannon. Battlecannons make marines soil their armor, a barbed strangler is like a light breeze with AP5.

And a fex with a VC+BS is 140 points at bs2 3+ save, 4 wounds. Comparing vehicles to monstrous creatures is flawed as they do not perform the same role and can not do the same type of damage. If your going to at least compare two creatures, at least compare them to something that makes actual sense, like a wraithlord v leman russ, because in terms of firepower they're much closer. The next time a bolter harms a leman russ from the front armor is the same time you can compare it to a carnifex.


The comparability is more in effect than anything else. The only reason a bolter can hurt a carnifex is because its T isn't 8. Similarly, A lascannon will ALWAYS hurt the rear of a leman russ, but on a 1, won't even scratch a carnifex




A t7, 5w 2+ save carnifex is 181 points with 2 basic rending claws. A russ is not. Even with a hull HB+sponson Hbs, and it actually has 3 HBs+a battlecannon rather than two worthless close combat upgrades.


You're forgetting that vehicles, as they are NOW, are costed cheaper precisely because they are easier to destroy than a monstrous creature. Were vehicles to get a T value and W, and a Sv, then if course their cost would go up.



People are missing that giving tanks armor saves, especially armor saves like 2+, would be like giving a big middle finger to all tyranid players. As much as I love only glancing with venom cannons I don't see how making my only glancing hits and adding in a 2+ save for them to ignore it with would help.

But that argument can apply to any army with a save your weapons cannot ignore. Vehicles with T, W, and Sv, would be like having multiple wraithlords/carnifexes, excepting that they have 0 WS, so cannot strike back, and don't lock models in close combat, which can be an important thing (you can shoot at the vehicle even if it has been charged by something).

Like I said:

T:6=AV:10
T:7=AV:11
T:8=AV:12
T:9=AV:13
T:10=AV:14

The only difference: AV is 'wounded' on a 1+, and T is wounded on a 6 when it normally couldn't (T7 vs S4 for example). So their differences are at either end of the spectrum.

A 2+sv, T7, 5W may be very expensive, but that is because it can't be instant killed by a bolter up the ass.


And as far as I am concerned, a carnifex taking a krak missile in the brain will die, no matter how good its regeneration is. A krak missile to the spirit stone of a wraithlord will kill it too.

You can justify it anyway you want - a shot through a vehicle can pass through one side of it and out the other with no real affect.

Hellebore

Magistrate
31-12-2006, 08:09
It's very much a marketting gimmick. Vehicles are expensive as is and, yes, a kitted out five man Tactical Squad of Space Marines OR a Devestator Heavy Support Squad of Space Marines can likely drop one in a single turn. Given the amount of MEQs out there and their respective players it also benefits a player more to buy these in bulk and comprise his entire army of such troops thus maximizing the amount of fire power he can bring to bare on a target(s) while also extending the life expectancy of his firing base and decreasing it's targetting profile ( although both trains of thought are double edged swords i've found ). But in the process of amassing this throng of kitted out Space Marines you've actually spent far, far more on all of those squads ( monetarily speaking ) than you would have that one vehicle which forfills a similiar purpose but has a much greater perceived frailty. If that perceived frailty were nonexistent what would you buy first? Your tank is going to cost a lot both monetarily and points-wise but in that same token you won't need anywhere near as many as you will with said Space Marines. In most cases if you pick up a vehicle you are less likely to get another one are you not?

So the extent of it is while they can be scary only a very few factions have vehicles that are at all enduring, thus being able to 'buy back their points'. Their purpose seems to simply be a very suicidal, crash and die one which other models can be better suited to forfilling. I do not have any suggetions for how to improve on them without completely reshaping the way 40k plays -- probably making it more 'complicated' along the way which would err against GW's apparent stance against making an uninventive product they can sell to the masses and drag new players into.

hiveminion
31-12-2006, 12:41
The only difference: AV is 'wounded' on a 1+, and T is wounded on a 6 when it normally couldn't (T7 vs S4 for example). So their differences are at either end of the spectrum.[QUOTE]

I think the fact that an anti-tank gun has a certain/extremely good chance to hurt a vehicle IF it hits, is only logical.
The only problem I see with vehicles is the unforgiving AP table. Once you get to roll on it, something bad is going to happen to said vehicle. That's why I suggest a 2d6 table.

[QUOTE]
And as far as I am concerned, a carnifex taking a krak missile in the brain will die, no matter how good its regeneration is. A krak missile to the spirit stone of a wraithlord will kill it too.

You forget the fact that a Carnifex doesn't need a brain, the Hive Mind thinks for it:rolleyes: .



You can justify it anyway you want - a shot through a vehicle can pass through one side of it and out the other with no real affect.

Hellebore

But that chance is sooo small it's better represented by a 2d6 AP table than wounds, wouldn't you agree?

Deadnight
31-12-2006, 14:14
i await the day the starship troopers system applies to 40k.

combined to hit and to wound values-a "damage roll". you need to roll above a certain value to cause damage. you "damage" a bug on a 5+.

same applies to vehicles and monstrous creatures except you need to roll higher (usually 8+) and they have several "hits"-(representing wounds, overall toughness, armour, redundant systems, backup generators on jets etc)

nice thing is the faster a vehicle moves, the higher you need to roll on the "damage" roll. so a jet thats "loitering" gets damaged easier than a jet on "cruise" or "burn!" plus, if its an aircraft, you need the "anti-aircraft" trait to be able to hit it at all at higher speeds.

even has workable air rules. and damaged vehicles cant do as much as undamaged, and when brought down to 1 hit, they gotta leave the field or count as destroyed.

the DS 3-meltagun squads are brutally hard on vehicles. but the "alert status" mechanism in ST, while itself slightly overpowered goes a huge way to alleviating it. when things finish an action within 10" of your troops, you get to react, which can be charging, running away, shooting etc.
and of course the 2-actions per unit is a far better system than the Move/Shoot/assault phases.

Now, for the whole monstrous creatures are tougher than tanks, ST has a great mechanism for it. like above, every unit has a target value (what you need to roll to cause damage) and a kill value (essentially an instant-kill equivelant). If you roll the kill value on the damage chart against something with 1 hit, its dead if it cant dodge it. if its got more than 1 hit, and you roll a kill value, and it fails its save, it loses 2 wounds. then there are "multi hit" weapons where a "target" result causes 2 wounds and a "kill" result causes 4.

fix 40k? port over the starship troopers rules.

pwrgmrguard
31-12-2006, 15:48
good and all but that means retooling the entire system and reprinting every codex and the rule book at the same time. huge cost in rules + dev right there. Secondly they would lose everyone who liked the old system. It'll never happen because it would cost too much. And lawsuits.

I think that THe Damage charts are the problem Not AV, or it could be a tank has a "Hard point" for every sponson/turret and one for the drive system. WHen a tank is hit and the AV is successfully beaten, determine if the hit affects the tank in genereal or a specific hardpoint. If it affects the tank in general it has a chance to blow it up or just shake/stun the entire crew. If it only affects a hardpoint, then only that weapon/drive system is destroyed/shaken/stunned. THat would be a good system in my opinion.

izandral
31-12-2006, 16:01
the fact is the system was playtested as is and anything that makes tank hardier will make them cost more

Deadnight
31-12-2006, 17:12
good and all but that means retooling the entire system and reprinting every codex and the rule book at the same time. huge cost in rules + dev right there. Secondly they would lose everyone who liked the old system. It'll never happen because it would cost too much. And lawsuits.
.

yeah, i know! its just a pipe dream for my part, for the simple reason that i find ST to be a far superior system. i suppose im just pointing out a different mechanism for it.

as it stands though, i will tolerate the vehicle rules, just like i tolerate the AP system. i dont like them, because better mechanics exist, but they do the job and allow me to play a straight forward game with no fuss.

vehicles are either "one hit and they're dead" or else "i can't damage the damn thing!" While i've had games where basilisks or bright lances destroyed all my armour in a turn, i've also had games where over 50 high str weapons shots hit my tanks, and i get off with a busted railgun, and nothing else! so its give and take as it is now. incedentally, im a 3-hammerhead tau player. i love tanks in 40k.

pwrgmrguard
31-12-2006, 23:52
I'd be fine with more expensive tanks if they were useful, but as it stands i'm doing more and more of what i swore i would never do... field an MEQ list. I hate the idea that one type of army dominates so well but i am also tired of losing because my tanks are staring at huge chunks of victory points but unable to shoot.

Horusaurus
01-01-2007, 06:25
An organic construct is far harder to disable in a single shot than a vehicle of comparable size.
And that's why Imperial Guardsmen are harder to disable than Necrons... oh wait.

Master Jeridian
01-01-2007, 07:35
Have to say vehicles have become a lot more fragile...but I think they are good as is, because:

1) This is an infantry based skirmish game, GW expects 1-3 tanks to 'support' an infantry force- a chance for cool tank models, to break the monotony of infantry. If tanks become better than infantry, then everyone will want Armoured Company- and anyone who's faced AC with an infantry force will need to join them or expect to lose most of the time.

This is purely a marketing policy- since history has proven that a mass of tanks concentrated for blitzkrieg tactics is far superior to spreading your tanks amongst infantry companies for support.

2) The 40k universe seems to be populated by armies who really hate vehicles- they are all maxed out on anti-tank weapons. You'll never see the thousands of IG regiments that weren't issued with lascannons, doomed to be crushed under an armoured advance, etc.

This is a gaming reason- people take lots of anti-tank because it doubles as anti-MEq. This has nothing to do with vehicles being rubbish- they are just unfortunate casualties. Making them stupidly resilient merely puts a plaster over the problem.

3) Skimmers are too good. If Skimmers didn't highlight all the problems of ground vehicles, then there'd be nothing to envy.

Difficult terrain is scary for vehicles- on 1 dice roll you could give up half the vehicle's VP's without your opponent doing a thing, worse, the vehicle is likely to be immobilised in a position where it can't do much. Skimmers are immune to this.

Penetrating hits increase the chances of destruction from 16% to 50%, and have dire results like forcing all the passengers out, auto-Stunned, etc. Skimmers can only be glanced (unless your dumb enough not to move them)- hence are immune.

A vehicle can be charged and easily dispatched with a well-placed power fist. If it is stationary, immobilised, was Stunned, etc you don't even have to roll to hit. And it doesn't fight back like infantry. A Skimmer can only be hit on a 6 regardless- drastically cutting the chance of damage down from 'a sure thing' (power fist on a Rhino) to 'not bloody likely' (same on a Speeder).

So with the exception of Skimmers- which need toning down- vehicles are not broken- used in numbers rather than as the 'big shiny one only shoot me' unit they are quite effective.


I don't like the Wounds, Toughness, Saves idea- it is well thought out and plausible, but OMG is it boring. As is the 'to hit and to wound all rolled into one' of ST.
I remember a time when 'simplifying' and 'streamlining' where reviled as pandering to kids, now it seems to be loved by all.

Surely, 5th Ed- with the players rolling a D6 each to see who wins will be the height of wargaming!

Hellebore
01-01-2007, 09:41
I think the fact that an anti-tank gun has a certain/extremely good chance to hurt a vehicle IF it hits, is only logical.
The only problem I see with vehicles is the unforgiving AP table. Once you get to roll on it, something bad is going to happen to said vehicle. That's why I suggest a 2d6 table.


Well, the table mainly refers to the crew for non destructive damage. Crew stunned et al. And yet, a monstrous creature hit by a shot can't be stunned at all.

A 2d6 table would be ok, but I think that it would increase the randomness a little TOO much. With such a big spread, you can't be certain what will happen, and probability of actually rolling a 'kill' goes down.



You forget the fact that a Carnifex doesn't need a brain, the Hive Mind thinks for it:rolleyes: .


That would be reflected by the synapse rule - if a monstrous creature suffers a 'brain death' damage result or sumsuch, but is within synpase range, it is just stunned instead or something.

The ability to ignore instant death only happens within synapse. Technically it doesn't make much sense anyway - why can't the hive mind 'resurrect' zombie carnifexes? If just being within synapse distance is enough to control the bug, why will it only work when the bug was alive BEFORE being controlled? Surely a carnifex's body could be controlled puppet-like by the hive mind. I mean, if the hive mind can control a carnifex even AFTER its brain has been blown out, so it effectively has nothing TO control it with, how come it can't pick up a dead one? Follows the same logical progression...



But that chance is sooo small it's better represented by a 2d6 AP table than wounds, wouldn't you agree?

I'm not sure WHAT chance there is, because I've never done a study of it.

I will say however, there is MORE of a chance that vehicle will survive unscathed from a penetrating hit, than a living creature. Every part of a monstrous creature will have some vulnerability (in the case of nids anyway).

Daemons, talos, and wraithlords are the only MCs that don't possess organic bodies, or rather, organs and nerves etc.

Which means they should probably be vehicles.

Hellebore

azimaith
01-01-2007, 11:09
The comparability is more in effect than anything else. The only reason a bolter can hurt a carnifex is because its T isn't 8. Similarly, A lascannon will ALWAYS hurt the rear of a leman russ, but on a 1, won't even scratch a carnifex

A roll of 2 will hurt a carnifex anywhere it is. Its not easy to get a lascannon up the ass of a leman russ. And carnifex never reach T8 *ever* with the current nid codex. Its not like a carnifex can turn itself and be wounded on a 5+ rather than a 2+ now is it. Its a self balancing factor. The only thing that needs to be dealt with stun and shaken having no second chances.




You're forgetting that vehicles, as they are NOW, are costed cheaper precisely because they are easier to destroy than a monstrous creature. Were vehicles to get a T value and W, and a Sv, then if course their cost would go up.

And what? I never claimed vehicles weren't easier to destroy than monstrous creatures. I'm saying its stupid to compare vehicles and a carnifex because they're two totally different things. Carnifex don't sport battlecannons and 3 heavy bolters, they can't zoom around at 12" a turn, they can be hurt by strength 4 weapons no matter what direction they're being shot at. Tanks are just *different*.



But that argument can apply to any army with a save your weapons cannot ignore. Vehicles with T, W, and Sv, would be like having multiple wraithlords/carnifexes, excepting that they have 0 WS, so cannot strike back, and don't lock models in close combat, which can be an important thing (you can shoot at the vehicle even if it has been charged by something).

No its not the same thing. I can kill troops because they move slowly in comparision to vehicles. Do you even play tyranids? Have you ever tried killing a tank in CC with genestealers without being blown apart by heavy bolter fire or being blown apart in a resulting explosion? Not being locked is not a penalty, its an advantage. It means it can never be run down in combat, never be stuck for turn after turn because it passes leadership, and it can just drive away and start blowing the ever loving crap out of everyone around it.



Like I said:

T:6=AV:10
T:7=AV:11
T:8=AV:12
T:9=AV:13
T:10=AV:14

Inaccurate. T7 can be hurt by bolters, thus its not AV11, which it utterly immune to bolter fire. AV12 can't be hurt by heavy bolter fire, T8 can be. AV13 can't be hurt by S6 weapons, T9 can be, so on and so on. Av10 is like T7(Imm to S3), AV11 like T8(Imm S4), and so on.



The only difference: AV is 'wounded' on a 1+, and T is wounded on a 6 when it normally couldn't (T7 vs S4 for example). So their differences are at either end of the spectrum.

Which is why they are not the same thing, or even comparable in what they can do.



A 2+sv, T7, 5W may be very expensive, but that is because it can't be instant killed by a bolter up the ass.

It also can't shoot the bolter as its walking up the board becuase it doesn't have any freaking guns, much less a battlecannon.



And as far as I am concerned, a carnifex taking a krak missile in the brain will die, no matter how good its regeneration is. A krak missile to the spirit stone of a wraithlord will kill it too.

Not likely, carnifex survive exterminatus, and carnifex don't need their brain to function as long as synaptic receptors in its body keep recieving signals.



You can justify it anyway you want - a shot through a vehicle can pass through one side of it and out the other with no real affect.

Hellebore
I never argued vehicles weren't too vulnerable (to stun and shaken though, not weapons fire) I argued it was stupid to compare them to monstrous creatures as they are very very different beasts. A vehicle is able to move fast as it likes, carry heavier weaponry, and has immunity to weapons below a given strength. A monstrous creature trades off invulnerability in certain cases for vulnerability in others and can not move as fast (unless they pay more for it than a vehicle). They're two different things and comparing one to another to justify changes is like saying apples need to be like oranges because you don't like the taste of apples.

You are also making a immensely exaggerated show of vehicle vulnerability. To be shot in the rear armor by a bolter and glanced is not very common and if it happens, its generally a mistake of the tank commander.

Reflex
01-01-2007, 11:35
i dont think its the armour values and toughness's of weapons that are the problem. i will always believe that its the damage tables that are screwed.

Hellebore
01-01-2007, 15:27
The only reason to argue FOR vehicles being different is that they currently are in the rules.

In rogue trader a vehicle had a toughness value, an it was seen as 'right' as well.

Like I said, you can justify it any way you want, and I am sure people were quite happy to have T vehicles in RT, and could see a justification for it.

I don't claim that giving vehicles a Toughness is the best option, but I'm not claiming AV values are the best either. The argument is also flawed if one assumes that, say, a leman russ won't have its AV values changed if they become T values. It's naive to make the assumption that advocation of changing rules to be a certain way precludes the changing of the statistics that USE those rules.

Of course vehicle T values would be different - and when they are changed, the arguement against them gets harder to justify. A T8 leman russ is harder to object to than a T10 one, yes?

Hellebore

The Wraithlord
01-01-2007, 18:33
I agree with the assertion that the problem with vehicles is the damage tables. Tanks can and do cost a fair few points and yet they can, very easily mind you, be nullified for the entire game even without being destroyed. The problem is with the Shaken and Stunned results. While I make no claims to a better idea, these two results in particular need to be examined more closely I think. They are meant to represent hits on the vehicle that don't do any real damage but do shake up the tank. I find it hard to believe that a weapon striking a tank and not doing anything beyond scratching the paint a bit would cause the crew to suddenly lose their ability to pilot and/or fire the weapons. I can see the MAIN gun being possibly unable to fire for a moment as it would require more effort than pointing the heavy bolters in the general direction of the enemy and pulling the trigger but I don't really think that these two results should mean that the vehicle cannot at least FIRE its weapons. To my mind, that would come into play on larger hits like Immobilized and up.

hiveminion
01-01-2007, 19:03
I carried that idea over to a 2d6 table, but I don't know how these work out yet, as I haven't had the chance to playtest them.

Stezerok
01-01-2007, 20:52
ok so I think all of this conversation about how things should be is excellent, and I definitely hope that GW people are looking at this to draw ideas for 5th Ed. But what I want to know is what do people do about it now? I mean are you all just suggesting that unless you play mechanized that maybe you'd be better off not taking a vehicle at all? or do vehicles hold a certain worth despite their glaring weakness? and most importantly, if we do decide how to play with them then how do we use them?

DesolationAngel
01-01-2007, 21:14
Tanks do get destroyed too easily, but in 3rd they were far to good. With obsured being (rightly) reduced, stacking immbolised and weapon destroyed results and more severe penalties for moving fast they are easier to destroy.

Really it depends, ive had a hammerhead due to pure luck survive a whole game against a shooty marine list. They can survive longer than troops and with luck take more hits. At the GT my friends monolith was only taken down after the 15th obliterator lascannon shot, yet against my friends necrons I took one down with 2 exorcist rockets. It really all depends.

Way I see it ..

Troops -
Cover save bonus but more likely to be damaged by lower strength shots. Most of the time get a 4+ save in cover, often aren't mobile, making it harder to take objectives.

Tanks - 4+ to reduce to glancing if obscured, or is a skimmer, 1/6 chance to destroy a non-skimmer on glance, 1/3 chance with a skimmer. Most shots will bounce off a decent armoured vechile (russ, hammerhead, raider). Forces target priority tests (I had to waste heavy bolters and assault cannons on a monolith for example) and can survive a game, can also take objectives.

Downside, compared to infantry easier to destroy and are often a soft target.

TheJrade
03-01-2007, 16:38
The vehicle rules ain't bad, but I agree they could use a minor tweak or two. I wouldn't mind the Glancing table having a "no effect" result, while making the high end more deadly would make sense as well. Getting a big hit on a vehicle sometimes results in only stunned, which is annoying. To counterbalance the less powerful low end, hits that exceed a vehicle's armor by 3 or more get multiple rolls on the damage charts.

hiveminion
03-01-2007, 19:21
ok so I think all of this conversation about how things should be is excellent, and I definitely hope that GW people are looking at this to draw ideas for 5th Ed. But what I want to know is what do people do about it now? I mean are you all just suggesting that unless you play mechanized that maybe you'd be better off not taking a vehicle at all? or do vehicles hold a certain worth despite their glaring weakness? and most importantly, if we do decide how to play with them then how do we use them?

Well, since I play in a gaming-environment that is extremely low on cheese (thank the Emperor for that), vehicles are often working as well as the ones in WD battle reports, ie, quite well.

I do make use of terrain, hiding behind it with my fragile Speeder(s) to wait for the opportune moment to strike.

The thing to expect with a vehicle is that it will be very effective once it is firing stuff, but that will last only for a turn or two, three, and then it gets blown out of the sky. I think that's pretty normal/realistic, and it will often have made it's choice worth in kills before it is destroyed.

HMSNoodles
04-01-2007, 16:09
I think the problem, as with much of the 4th edition is that a D6 just simply does not give you enough options. The've tried to cram every possible outcome into 6 different options, and this is just far to limited.

Just make a 2D6 Damage Table, give you the options for a few more interesting results.

Glancing Hits get -2 on the table, Ordence hits get +1

0-2
No Damage
3
Driver Stunned: Vehicle may not move next turn
4
Gunner Stunned: Vehicle may not fire any main weapons next turn
5
Crew Stunned: Vehicle may not move or fire any main weapons next turn
6
Immobilised: Crew stunned + Immobilised
7
Weapon Destroyed: Crew stunned + one weapon destroyed
8
Fuel Tank/Cells/Reactor Hit: The vehicle's fuel tank is hit, bursting into flames. The Vehicle may no longer move. At the end of the owning players next turn, the vehicle explodes and is destroyed.
9-11
Vehicle Destroyed
12-13
Vehicle Annihilated - The vehicle explodes in a massive ball of flame and is destroyed. Any model within 2" of the vehicle takes a wound on a 4+. Normal armour saves apply.

Using something like this still makes it reasonably easy to destroy, but means the vehicle is not made useless buy almost any roll, as in most cases it can still fire its defensive weapons.

Midknightwraith
04-01-2007, 18:27
I would prefer a second AP system that deals with vehicles, and a combined damage chart, something like this

1-2 No Effect
3-4 Shaken
5 Stunned
6 Weapon Destroyed
7 Stunned/Weapon Destroyed
8 Imobilized
9 Stunned Imobilized
10 Destroyed
11 Destroyed d6" explosion
12 Destroyed 6" Explosion
13 Annihilated

If your "wound" roll >= vehicle armor you get to make a damage roll on the table above, and you get a bonus to the roll equal to the amount you exceed the AV by. +1 for Ordinance, plus the new secondary AP value. The chart could be adjusted for balance.

For example new LasCannon profile get 2nd AP value of 2. LasCannon shoots at the front armor of a Leman Russ. Rolls a 5 to penetrate beating the armor just barely. On the ensuing damage roll a bonus of +3 is applied to the roll on the table. +2 for the AP value, and +1 for the pentration roll. Yeilding a result between 4 and 9.

I don't know why we waste our breath though, GW is not likely to even read this stuff. Over all I think the current Vehicle rules are balanced quite well. I just don't find them to be particularly representative of how vehicles opperate. I said something similar about the 3rd Edition Eldar Avatar as I recall. Great for the points, no question, but representative of the living embodiment of a deity, I don't think so!

If 40k is in fact a skirmish level game (instead of the company level game we have been told it is), then there are some serious problems with the system as a whole. 6 Turn games for one are very short given the limited number of things a unit can do in a turn. Also, Skirmish forces might have a single tank or APC a most. Not the RhinoPillBox Army, or Fish/Serpent of Fury variations we see cropping up today. And therein lies the problem. The game itself does not scale well inside the FOC for 1500 pt game, to represent a Skirmish, or a Company Level engagement. And it is not liekly that this will ever change. Certainly it won't change any time soon.

Maren
04-01-2007, 18:50
Well if we want to take a more realistic point of view tanks should be harder to destroy. For example; during world war two most anti tanks weapons couldnt penetrate a tiger (ww2 leman russ) unless it was pointblank and from behind while in w40k a small auto cannon can penetrate a leman russ from miles of. And even if the weapons get stronger so do the tanks, i dont really think they invent power armour but just skipe making the tanks armour stronger just like that.
On another note they should prob be made cheaper and more availiable since they would probobly crank up the production rate when they notice that if u send them out in pairs or threes they get crushed to pulp.
Just my two cents or whatever, cheerio.

hiveminion
04-01-2007, 18:55
@Maren: in that case the armour should be harder to penetrate. After all, once a shot penetrates the armour, there is nothing to prevent the tank from blowing up, or something similar. Destruction comes after penetration.

Maren
04-01-2007, 19:32
Well that was probobly what i meant if u read what i wrote mister smarty pants. Harder to penetrate harder to destroy, same same really since if u penetrate the armour anything you do forces it out of action. Armament destroyed doesnt necesserily mean penetrated armour for example. But anyway, i was right u were wrong..


Edit. By the way that was an excellent point. Thumbs up to u :)

hiveminion
04-01-2007, 19:42
Well, first of all, I thougt you were also advocating for giving vehicles wounds. I'm sorry if that wasn't your point but after dozens of similar posts/arguments you can't blame me for drawing a hasty conclusion from a vague post.
In fact I was happy you posted the example of the ww2 tank versus anti-tank missile, it further stresses the fact that only one penetrating hit is needed to blow up a tank, not 4 or 5 as some people suggested.

Perhaps "u" could also adjust your tone a little bit. I was not trying to make you sound stupid or anything. In fact you contradict yourself in saying that we both said the same thing, yet you are right and I am wrong...:eyebrows:

azimaith
04-01-2007, 20:44
Well if we want to take a more realistic point of view tanks should be harder to destroy. For example; during world war two most anti tanks weapons couldnt penetrate a tiger (ww2 leman russ) unless it was pointblank and from behind while in w40k a small auto cannon can penetrate a leman russ from miles of. And even if the weapons get stronger so do the tanks, i dont really think they invent power armour but just skipe making the tanks armour stronger just like that.

Ever considered that maybe the Leman Russ isn't the equivalent of the Tiger tank? I've already looked at the stats on the Russ and its armor and speed are abysmal compared to modern tanks. Considering the advancement of weapons technology with the stagnation of vehicular technology (Not enough/not good enough STC's) it makes as much sense as anything else. Leman Russ'es are basically more reliable WW1 tanks with more armor.



On another note they should prob be made cheaper and more availiable since they would probobly crank up the production rate when they notice that if u send them out in pairs or threes they get crushed to pulp.
Just my two cents or whatever, cheerio.
How exactly do you get more than 3 leman russes without breaking out another FOC, cheap or not. Its not cheapness, its stunning/shaking that needs to change.

Midknightwraith
04-01-2007, 21:31
Yeah, I would like to see tank squadrons, instead of individual tanks on the FOC. I would limit it to 1 Squadron of 1-3 Tanks/Transports for each FOC taking up a single slot on the FOC. And no other "Tanks" allowed. With the tanks opperating independantly once the game starts. There are several Tanks for which this just makes too much sense.

Smokedog
04-01-2007, 22:08
I have a 2D6 damage chart in my up-comming "Advanced" 40k ruleset add on.... Its finally been formatted the same as official 40k book. (it took a while). I will be needed play testers once the first draft is publish here on warseer (within 1 week).

Any takers? You can trial any part of the ruleset, ie just the vehicle rules if you want...

pwrgmrguard
06-01-2007, 03:42
I think i can issue a general statemant as a result of the views of many of the people psting in this thread.

It is not Vehicles need be harder to destroy, just harder to ineffectualize, and thus Stunned and Shaken must be changed.

I think that sums up a lot of what i have read. How we change stunned and shaken is the question now.