PDA

View Full Version : Does GW realise this?



Redscare
17-02-2010, 00:55
Does GW even realise that when shooting at vehicles, there is no difference between an AP 6 weapon and an AP 2 weapon?

It's not news to me that they don't know the game they designed (heck, Our Glorious Matt Ward only proves this point), but looking back on some of the decisions in the army books, it just seems they have no clue how AP works against tanks...

Archangel_Ruined
17-02-2010, 00:56
They do have a clue, they wrote it. For mechanics that work, though, only AP1 and AP- have an effect. We could go back to 2nd if you prefer...

Worsle
17-02-2010, 01:03
As fond as my memories of the 2nd edition are I don't think I could take it any more.

What rules would you want for Ap2 to Ap6 weapons would you want and how would it happen without making a mess of the damage chart and slowing down the game. Then we would have to wait for a full run of codexes to bleed this though to, to balance out the effect this would have on the various different weapons in the game.

Brother Mordeus
17-02-2010, 01:09
Ya that wouldn't be a good move, I think AP 1 allows some weapons to be pure tank killers. If you had a chart with every different AP doing something different, most people would get confused and as said up there, would only help slow down the game and lengthen the learning curve.

WinglessVT2
17-02-2010, 01:30
They're catching on, but it will be awhile before the books start reflecting this for real.

Sygerrik
17-02-2010, 01:46
There's an awful lot of abstraction going on on the vehicle damage table. "Weapon destroyed" could mean the mount is literally blown off, the barrel is punctured or bent, the ammunition feed is destroyed, the gunner is killed, or the computers guiding it are fried. "Immobilized" could mean the tank throws a tread, the engine overheats, the fuel line is cut, etc.
From that perspective, while a plasma blast certainly has more cutting power than an autocannon shot (despite both being S7), the amount of damage they deal does not differ enough to warrant a modification of that table. Similarly, while a krak missile and a pulse laser have different cutting power, they have the same strength and roughly the same effect. An Exorcist missile or melta blast, on the other hand, is as strong as either of those but SO effective and specialized at cutting through armor that when it does penetrate, the effects are noticeably more catastrophic.

Occulto
17-02-2010, 01:50
Is this another: "I think GW write crap rules" thread?

bigcheese76
17-02-2010, 01:55
The system as it is is not fully representative of what happens when shell X hits tank Y, but if GW made it so then the rules set would turn far too complex, something GW want to avoid.

KingNova3000
17-02-2010, 01:59
If you want complex vehicle shooting rules that bog the game down go and play 2nd ed. What works now is perfectly fine. From a game design perspective sometime simple and streamlined is best.

If you want simulation/realistic rules then dont play a fantasy game. :P

sigur
17-02-2010, 02:07
Does GW even realise that when shooting at vehicles, there is no difference between an AP 6 weapon and an AP 2 weapon? ..

Sure they know that. They DESIGNED it that way and it works. AP implies how the thing works on body armour, not on vehicles. And let us not start discussing about anything we think we know about real-life armour, laser guns and whatnot. These discussions always end up being ridiculous and UTTERLY pointless.

DDogwood
17-02-2010, 02:22
I aimed my laser pointer at a Rhino model for an hour and it didn't leave a mark at all. Clearly the rules don't reflect reality.

Born Again
17-02-2010, 03:00
Is this another: "I think GW write crap rules" thread?

Is this not Whineseer?


I aimed my laser pointer at a Rhino model for an hour and it didn't leave a mark at all. Clearly the rules don't reflect reality.

You, sir, have just won the thread.

Occulto
17-02-2010, 03:06
Is this not Whineseer?

Yeah, yeah, I know... :angel:

Maskedman5oh4
17-02-2010, 03:52
This thread needs more battletech record sheets...

http://lh4.ggpht.com/_Aj5ChdgJN_o/SQh1bmphWTI/AAAAAAAAASQ/F2UTmevJR84/s512/ActaeonSheet.jpg

The_Unforgiven
17-02-2010, 04:54
This thread needs more battletech record sheets...

http://lh4.ggpht.com/_Aj5ChdgJN_o/SQh1bmphWTI/AAAAAAAAASQ/F2UTmevJR84/s512/ActaeonSheet.jpg

more battletech!

MajorWesJanson
17-02-2010, 05:03
I aimed my laser pointer at a Rhino model for an hour and it didn't leave a mark at all. Clearly the rules don't reflect reality.

No, the rules are right right on. Laser pointer = las gun = S3. You aren't going to touch vehicles with that.

ehlijen
17-02-2010, 05:10
This thread needs more battletech record sheets...

http://lh4.ggpht.com/_Aj5ChdgJN_o/SQh1bmphWTI/AAAAAAAAASQ/F2UTmevJR84/s512/ActaeonSheet.jpg

Ever tried Starfleet Battles?

4 mechs vs 4 mechs is about the equivalent of a 1.5k to 2k 40k game in time investment, as is a 1 v 1 Starfleet battles duel.

DDogwood
17-02-2010, 05:14
No, the rules are right right on. Laser pointer = las gun = S3. You aren't going to touch vehicles with that.

But it was a green laser!

Pink Horror
17-02-2010, 05:17
If you want complex vehicle shooting rules that bog the game down go and play 2nd ed. What works now is perfectly fine. From a game design perspective sometime simple and streamlined is best.

If you want simulation/realistic rules then dont play a fantasy game. :P

Realistic war game rules put even less work into making sure the weapons are all differentiated. If you want rules that pretend to be able to simulate one shot accurately, I don't know, try Dark Heresy.

Egaeus
17-02-2010, 05:40
Does GW even realise that when shooting at vehicles, there is no difference between an AP 6 weapon and an AP 2 weapon?

It's not news to me that they don't know the game they designed (heck, Our Glorious Matt Ward only proves this point), but looking back on some of the decisions in the army books, it just seems they have no clue how AP works against tanks...

IIRC AP 1 and - didn't do anything at all in third edition either...it wasn't until later editions (and I suspect a lot of complaining then too) when AP became any kind of factor against armour.

wilsongrahams
17-02-2010, 07:17
You also have to remember that the thicker armour is the less effect an armour piercing round will have against it. Taking just solid rounds for simplicity and assuming other weapons are EQUIVALENTS to these stat wise even if they function differently.

Take a rifle bullet with a round nose, this would be low AP value. Against light body armour or a tank it's just flatten out.

Take a tipped nice pointy bullet, now against light body armour, it can easily push the material to either side of it, and penetrate, but against a tank, the metal is too thick to push around it, because it lacks the force to compress so much material, and so the bullet flattens out against the thick armour. This is medium AP value most likely.

Take a Sabot round from a tank, long and pointy, thin and bigger than a bullet. This is your AP1 weapon. Against body armour it rips through like above. Against thicker tank armour, it has the mass to keep pushing through the armour until it has forced it's way through rather than slowing down and flattening (the only other option when the back of the round wants to keep going and the front can't). Therefore, weapons DO act differently agaisnt thin and thick armour based on their overall size and shape, probably why an AP2 gun in 40k is great against troops with 3" thick armour, but no better against tanks with the EQUIVALENT of say 10" of armour.

The Marshel
17-02-2010, 08:27
I'd like to see some sort of benefit for being ap 2 and 3, but I can see how it might over complicate or slow down the game, and i have no issues sacrificing a sensible amount of realism or logic for the sake of streamlining the game

hawo0313
17-02-2010, 08:56
lol they could always give vehicles an armour save then your AP would have an effect :p

but really I think that the system is fine the way it is now most of the shots that are low AP are high strength giving them the tank hunting advantage anyway

Hunger
17-02-2010, 09:36
The system as it is is not fully representative of what happens when shell X hits tank Y, but if GW made it so then the rules set would turn far too complex, something GW want to avoid.

Plus it eliminates some degree of your imagination, which I feel is an important part of the game.

I don't want to be told exactly what happens when a given shot causes damage to something - my brain is perfectly capable of pictring the scene.

SylverClaw
17-02-2010, 09:45
lol they could always give vehicles an armour save then your AP would have an effect :p

but really I think that the system is fine the way it is now most of the shots that are low AP are high strength giving them the tank hunting advantage anyway

I agree that the system is fine.

But... to be honest, that's not a stupid idea.

Give vehicles saves and "wounds", ditch the damage table in favour of an easy wrecked or explodes result when you hit 0 wounds. AP now does something, vehicles get a minor buff (they become weaker overall but would be fully functional until destroyed) and the game rules are vastly smoothed over - vehicles are just the same as troops aside from what happens when they get to 0 wounds.

Certainly would be easier for a newcomer to understand.

However... fine as it is really.

Giganthrax
17-02-2010, 09:49
D6 systems are, by default, very wide when it comes to effects, which often results in what might seem like things being treated unrealistically (for example, terminator armor being 2+ save is quite pathetic when compared to what it's like in fluff).

It's just something you gotha accept. Sure, a lascannon should have more cutting power then a bolter, but representing these things is hard in a D6 system, and trying to make more complex tables would only bog down the game unnecessarily.

In other words; it's fine as it is. :)

Revlid
17-02-2010, 10:30
http://www.warseer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3989952&postcount=6

Hellebore more-or-less sums up my feelings on the matter in the above post. Unlikely though it is, it's what I'd like to see for 6th Edition.

Logarithm Udgaur
17-02-2010, 10:58
I aimed my laser pointer at a Rhino model for an hour and it didn't leave a mark at all. Clearly the rules don't reflect reality.
Sure they do. You ever tried firing Lasguns at a Rhino?

gwarsh41
17-02-2010, 14:53
Why do people want all of the rules normalized?
Vehicles and MC are both big so they need the same rules?

Grax
17-02-2010, 15:33
I think it's realistic enough. AP is to reflect that in modern warfare, there are certain types of bullets/attacks that completely ignore armor, as if it wasn't even there, regardless of how tough it is. It's like teflon bullets and such. The strength of the material doesn't matter.

Vehicles, on the other hand, are more or less solid metal, and when attacked dead on with anything short of a missile, you'll only do damage if you hit one of its small vulnerable spots. So when shooting against vehicles, it's not so much the design of the bullet, but where you hit it, and how much power is behind the strike, making AP more or less meaningless.

Now that I think of it, the difference between AP6 and AP3 doesn't mean anything to a terminator as well, so it's not just vehicles. What they're saying is that the attack doesn't completely ignore their armor, and with vehicles, it means that unless it's AP1, it doesn't matter what type of shell/bullet it is.

Thud
17-02-2010, 15:43
Game mechanics don't need to make sense, they just need to be good game mechanics.

DeadlySquirrel
17-02-2010, 16:33
its been said before, we play warhammer for the warhammer part.... not the GW part. Warhammer is awsome, GW is not.

Dont ya just hate all these "GW need to change x, y and z" threads? =p

Egaeus
17-02-2010, 19:08
Game mechanics don't need to make sense, they just need to be good game mechanics.

Umm...we are talking about Games Workshop games here...and they don't make "good" games, just passable ones. :p


Dont ya just hate all these "GW need to change x, y and z" threads? =p

Not really.

Games Workshop changes things with every iteration of the system. To me, 5th Edition 40K was as much a step sideways as it was a step forward. Wouldn't it be nice if GW actually listened to customers and gave them what they wanted instead of just churning out what they feel like?

Now obviously different people are going to have different opinoins on the best way to make the rules better, but I think it's a good thing that people can express those opinions.

As I mentioned in a previous post, my recollection is that AP was absolutely meaningless against vehicles in third edition (I refer to 3rd because it was the overhaul that gave us the core of the system we have today). AP1 was rumoured to be a misprint based on playtesting that had AP needing to be lower than armour save, not equal, as nothing in the game has better than a 2+ save, so AP 2 should really be the cap on those values. So in 4th they made AP1 better against vehicles so that it wasn't just a useless number. The effects of AP- may have been included then as well, but it's been a while since I've compared the rules.

It might be interesting to work out some kind of system for AP to be effective versus vehicles but it really isn't necessary, and GW does like to try to keep their system simple.

borithan
17-02-2010, 19:14
Does GW even realise that when shooting at vehicles, there is no difference between an AP 6 weapon and an AP 2 weapon?

It's not news to me that they don't know the game they designed (heck, Our Glorious Matt Ward only proves this point), but looking back on some of the decisions in the army books, it just seems they have no clue how AP works against tanks...Erm... I think it is very obvious that AP does nothing to tanks, especially if you work on the rules system.

Anyway, AP represents the ability to puncture body armour, and so doesn't necessarily have any impact on damaging vehicles. In fact, they only made AP 1 do extra damage to vehicles because otherwise there was no point to it whatsoever.


battletechGurble... a rules-set that represents armour as "health points". At least 40k moved away from that years ago.

Skyros
17-02-2010, 19:15
Does GW even realise that when shooting at vehicles, there is no difference between an AP 6 weapon and an AP 2 weapon?


Why should there be? you may as well complain that when shooting at a space marine there is no difference between AP - weaponry and AP4 weaponry.

AP1 is defined as extra likely to punch through tank armor. AP- is defined as less likely to get through tank armor. The variations in between are just for shooting at body armor.

TheWarSmith
18-02-2010, 06:10
I aimed my laser pointer at a Rhino model for an hour and it didn't leave a mark at all. Clearly the rules don't reflect reality.

You sir, have been sigged!!

How about you go play w/ the 6th edition steam tank rules for fantasy, then see how much you love the complexities of armour piercing/wounds/etc.

Lemmywinkz
18-02-2010, 06:22
I think they are fine the way they are. I would say that you should just change AP from meaning Armor Penetration value to Anti Personnel value?

Voleron
18-02-2010, 06:26
Gurble... a rules-set that represents armour as "health points". At least 40k moved away from that years ago.

Considering that armour in Battletech is explicitly stated to always be Ablative armour of some description, giving the armour the equivalent of a HP value makes rather a lot of sense to me, at least. :eyebrows:

Aegius
18-02-2010, 12:08
But it was a green laser!

Therin lies your problem. Green lazors are for healing, you should have used your red lazors, if you wanted shooty pewpew. :)

borithan
18-02-2010, 12:56
Considering that armour in Battletech is explicitly stated to always be Ablative armour of some description, giving the armour the equivalent of a HP value makes rather a lot of sense to me, at least. :eyebrows:Well, yes, to a certain extent. Personally it 1) feels like a background way to explain a game mechanic, rather than they thought "Oh, we want these things to have ablative armour, so how do we represent that?" and 2) ablative armour is usually in addition to some other form of protection, and aimed at certain threats. Having protection on a heavy combat vehicle being entirely reliant on an ablative principle to me seems daft.

Though I guess i am not going to be the greatest Battletech fan, as I am not a huge fan of the idea of mechs in the first place.

Free Spirit
18-02-2010, 13:15
Same thing with fitting 10 marines in a rhino, or how the marines in the books aren't equivalent to the marines in the game (moviemarine stuff). What works on a logical level doesn't always work in the game. I'm happy with the current way the vehicles and damage are handled, it speeds up the game and i still have a lot of fun blowing up all sorts of goodyness with my Long Fang AP 2 lascannons :)

Coasty
18-02-2010, 14:16
...it just seems they have no clue how AP works against tanks...

Are you sure they have no clue? Strength counts against wagons, not AP.

Pink Horror
18-02-2010, 22:09
Same thing with fitting 10 marines in a rhino, or how the marines in the books aren't equivalent to the marines in the game (moviemarine stuff).

If you could take them off the bases and cram them in the way marines would really be willing to huddle together, they might actually fit in there. They are super-soldiers, so it does not have to be a comfortable ride.

If I'm not mistaken, all of the soldiers in the game can be laughably powerful in the fluff. It all depends on the perspective of the storyteller. There are crazy things written and the strength and resilience of an Ork, the indestructible Necrons, all of the things blown away by lasguns, the all-out superiority of the Eldar, etc. When you put the marines in that context, they are about right. Movie marines come from reading only marine fluff.

Drop-Trooper
18-02-2010, 22:54
There's an awful lot of abstraction going on on the vehicle damage table. "Weapon destroyed" could mean the mount is literally blown off, the barrel is punctured or bent, the ammunition feed is destroyed, the gunner is killed, or the computers guiding it are fried. "Immobilized" could mean the tank throws a tread, the engine overheats, the fuel line is cut, etc.
From that perspective, while a plasma blast certainly has more cutting power than an autocannon shot (despite both being S7), the amount of damage they deal does not differ enough to warrant a modification of that table. Similarly, while a krak missile and a pulse laser have different cutting power, they have the same strength and roughly the same effect. An Exorcist missile or melta blast, on the other hand, is as strong as either of those but SO effective and specialized at cutting through armor that when it does penetrate, the effects are noticeably more catastrophic.

I like this.

Purge the Heretic
18-02-2010, 23:12
If you could take them off the bases and cram them in the way marines would really be willing to huddle together, they might actually fit in there. They are super-soldiers, so it does not have to be a comfortable ride.

If I'm not mistaken, all of the soldiers in the game can be laughably powerful in the fluff. It all depends on the perspective of the storyteller. There are crazy things written and the strength and resilience of an Ork, the indestructible Necrons, all of the things blown away by lasguns, the all-out superiority of the Eldar, etc. When you put the marines in that context, they are about right. Movie marines come from reading only marine fluff.

not lasguns...multilasers...ty CS Goto

borithan
19-02-2010, 15:50
not lasguns...multilasers...ty CS GotoLasguns frequently do silly stuff in many guards books. Its not just referring to multilasers.

unheilig
19-02-2010, 16:45
if you want "realistic rules", play Phoenix Command.

hands down, the most realistic combat simulation that involves dice ever written. the rules were mathematically based off FBI ballistics reports information.

its no fun, of course, but extremely realistic.