Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Basically the title - should it be possible to destroy the limbs or weapons on a MC, similar to how you can blow limbs/weapons off vehicles or walkers?

It would be better balance if MCs had a chart like vehicles as well.

I vote no. Too much added complication to the game. MCs are now 'Wounded' units like every other non-vehicle unit in that respect. You'd have to develop a system of Armor-Facing that relied on Toughness, and then that would beg the question why multi-wound infantry, HQ, Elites, Jump Units, Bikes, Beasts, etc. wouldn't be subject to having their weapon blown away with every wound as well.

I'm undecided, Iv always felt big beasts with a single would
Eft shouldn't be as dangerous as a full wound one, but tracking it and all the additional rolling etc would probably be a hassle that drags out the game for only a minor benefit

I voted no just because I really don't want more book keeping added in a game. There's already enough stuff to track on a unit by unit or model by model basis, we don need more.

If you do this then you may as well go whole hog and do it to any multi-wound model. And THAT is just way too complicated.

There's already too many little pieces of paper / tokens that have to litter the battlefield. I really don't want any more.

 TheAvengingKnee wrote:
I voted no just because I really don't want more book keeping added in a game. There's already enough stuff to track on a unit by unit or model by model basis, we don need more.

This x 100

CYBORK wrote:

 TheAvengingKnee wrote:
I voted no just because I really don't want more book keeping added in a game. There's already enough stuff to track on a unit by unit or model by model basis, we don need more.

This x 100

Add another x100

My thought was always they should lose an attack for each wound down. An MC wound chart would also be good. Or just make them vehicles.

Just remove melta d6 pen and all is well.

Oh God please do not make Monstrous Creatures vehicles. If they got the vehicle treatment, then they would not seem like an organism anymore, and just be a machine. That is not a big deal with things like riptides or dreadknights, but both my nids and I would be very sad to see AV carnifexen...

As to the topic at hand, I too voted no. Anybody can be maimed or dismembered. Why single out monstrous creatures? Even the average marine, represented as a single wound model, is known for surviving wounds that would kill a lesser man. If we had a system for effects of cumulative damage to creatures, there is nothing that says it wouldn't dissolve into a chart for all models. I'm imagining something like "ok, you severed my marine's left arm, but he is ok. He has minus one attack and ballistic skill". This totally fits in with the fluff and actually seems kind of epic, but requires so much micro management that games would be impossible to finish or manage. It would be bad for a tactical squad, let alone a horde of orks or guardsmen. It does not work with the model count that warhammer deals with, and I do not want to go down the rabbit hole.

Too much micro-management. It's good in Hordes, but that's because the game is so much smaller in scale.

Also, most MCs are Tyranids or Daemons. Lack of building damage can be attributed to redundant organs (Tyranids), a lack of real organs (Daemons), or just being really tough.

Weapon Destroyed and Immobilised are kind of silly, anyway. Walkers and MCs need balanced, but that should be by buffing Walkers.

I voted no.

I think it would actually be better to remove the vehicle table. I think the game is too complicated. Although I am sure some would validly disagree, I feel the game would be better if a lot were simplified at the expense of sacrificing realism.

Remove vehicles and MCs and have one set of rules for big gribblies and tanks.

And no to the proposition. More book keeping/bloat is bad, and this wouldn't benefit the game in any significant way.

If vehicles are going to have both wounds *and* a damage table, I see no reason why MC's should not as well. Either that or get rid of the vehicle damage table entirely and give vehicles saving throws.

Really though, the vehicle rules in general need to be scrapped and redone, and some MC's need to be toned down notably (nurgle FMC's and jinking on the ground for a 2+ cover save, the Jink mechanic in general, Riptides, etc).

I'm up for more complication. And add a thing to multi-wound guyz too. Something like a stat drop probably. Or loss of attacks. Something that's not hard to memorise.

If vehicles are going to have both wounds *and* a damage table, I see no reason why MC's should not as well. Either that or get rid of the vehicle damage table entirely and give vehicles saving throws.

Vehicles are impervious to most small arms fire. They are maybe going to cause a hull point or two at best. It requires dedicated antitank weapons, or exposure to the vulnerable rear armor of vehicles to cause any of the effects of the damage chart. Their save is built into their inability to be harmed by normal weapons and most dedicated anti tank weapons penetrate the armor of models with an armor save anyway. Monstrous creatures, in general, are more threatened by small arms fire than vehicles, and the fact that they have armor saves does nothing against those low ap weapons. Lasguns cannot touch armor, but can wound a carnifex. The last thing we need is for that lasgun to not only wound, but also to create a lasting effect. The model was already wounded by a weapon that cannot touch armor, and now we want to allow it to hurt the MC more? There are ways to make conventional weapons even better against MCs with poison or ID, yet vehicles are not effected by these. There are strengths and weaknesses to both types of models which I think are pretty fair and fun.

I do not want to see lasguns shearing off limbs. That would be awful.

graywater wrote:
Vehicles are impervious to most small arms fire.

So is a Wraithknight/Lord, and functionally so is a Riptide, and a Flyrant and a Nurgle DP. It takes 700 points of Marine shooting to put a single wound on a Riptide (54 bolter shots) and double that to put a wound on a swooping T6 3+ MC.

Meanwhile, any penetrating hit will cripple a vehicle for at least a turn.

MC's are so resilient to everything that isn't rapid-fire plasma that the immunity to small-arms vehicles possess fails spectacularly to compensate for them not having any saves and nearly every anti-tank weapon basically having "causes instant death on a six".

MC's for all practical purposes are largely immune to most small arms fire. Trying to kill something like a FNP'd riptide with lasguns will require an average of 540 shots. Even the weakest MC's in the game that I can think of, Necron Spyders (which are hilariously cheap) will require well over a hundred lasgun shots to kill on average.

While yes, MC's are potentially vulnerable to small arms, their vulnerability is being grossly overstated. MC's require anti-tank guns to kill, you may ding a wound off once in a while, but small arms are not going to be a significant factor in removing any MC from the field.

EDIT: meanwhile, not all vehicles are immune to small arms by any means. Most are immune to small arms from the front, but not all, and many are quite vulnerable to small arms from the sides, and 95% are from the rear. If a marine squad catches the side of a Chimera or Basilisk for instance, well, they'll be able to bolter down three of those for every one 50pt Necron Spyder they can bolter down from any angle. Meanwhile, tanks practically auto-die in CC where MC's are at their most effective typically.

Simplified chart?

Ie yes if its as hit its definitely one wound. But slamming a thunder hammer into somthing does alot more damage than a las gun, reserve chart for attacks over certain strength not just any.

But addition to that a result for a lost attack, reduced movement or a destroyed weapon, no stunned etc.

Only for big creatures, and have one designed for each race. Only effecting big creatures not infriantry etc.

I think that all models in 40k should have a T/W/Sv stat, because the mechanics for vehicle armour don't really work and are too fiddly.

I think the simplest way to represent accumulating damage is when the model hits half wounds it loses half of its ranged weapons (rounding fractions up), and halves its attacks in close combat if it has any (rounding fractions up).

That can easily be applied to all vehicles, walkers and monstrous creatures.

Vaktathi and blaxican,
I see your math and appreciate the numbers you brought up. They certainly sound compelling. I do think you were looking at the most overpowered forms of creatures, but that is beyond the point. Perhaps for reasons like easy manipulation, monstrous creatures could use a bit of an attempt at further balance. So I can see the table as welcome for balance. I still don't like it though. It's flesh over steel for me and like that monstrous creatures don't have a damage table. To me, it represents the organic continuing when mechanics may fail. I see your math, but disagree for thematic reasons.

I can live with MC's being as they are, I don't terribly mind them in and of themselves right now in terms of core mechanics (specific MC's and abilities being another thing). A "damage chart" of sorts wouldn't bother me either, a demolisher cannon hitting a Carnifex really should do more than just take off a wound, but that said, I think it's the vehicle rules in and of themselves that really do need changing. Either go back to a damage-table-only kill mechanic like 5E (changed to make it somewhat more difficult on transports and easier on gun tanks), or move them over to the Toughness/Save mechanic, as opposed to having two overlapping kill mechanics.

The feeling I'm getting from this thread is that people are unhappy with vehicle damage. So perhaps it is the vehicle damage chart that needs to be reevaluated. I could agree with that. Including another damage chart which effects monstrous creatures doesn't solve the initial problem of a poor damage mechanism for vehicles, and actually compounds the issue by including another chart with those same flaws that mar the current damage chart.

I'd personally be on board for getting rid of AV / Damage system. Just give vehicles a T stat and Wounds. They've already got hull points... go one step further.

I mean, vehicles without saves are substantially "softer" than a roughly equal MC. AV "minus 4" is roughly equal to Toughness. A Demolisher Cannon needs a 4+ to damage a Land Raider. An Autocannon needs a 4+ to damage an... er... AV 11 vehicle.

Melta weapons / Armourbane could gain "Shred" against vehicles.

I voted "No", in favour of getting rid of the vehicle mechanic.

 Vaktathi wrote:
If vehicles are going to have both wounds *and* a damage table, I see no reason why MC's should not as well. Either that or get rid of the vehicle damage table entirely and give vehicles saving throws.

Really though, the vehicle rules in general need to be scrapped and redone, and some MC's need to be toned down notably (nurgle FMC's and jinking on the ground for a 2+ cover save, the Jink mechanic in general, Riptides, etc).

this.

if we're going to be stuck with something resembling the current vehicle damage rules, then MCs should suffer the same loss of effectiveness due to massive damage that vehicles do. if you can stun a vehicle crew, you should be able to stun an MC, etc. that said, the real fix is to clean up the vehicle rules entirely, stop treating certain walkers as MCs and others as vehicles and bring some parity to all the "big stuff" on the table.

Edited out..misread something

If this were just an issue with vehicles vs. MCs, there would be some relatively easy fixes. The real problem is the availability of high S, low AP weaponry. Practically every army has units that can take multiples of melta/plasma analogs per squad. Why take Terminators at 30+ points a pop when Random McGuardsman costs 7 points, takes a plasma gun at 10 points, and rocks a BS4. Oh, and he has two buddies in his squad who can do the same thing.

It's not one thing in 40K that's screwy. There's a chain of poor design choices that has brought us to the mess we have today.

To be fair, there have always been IG units able to do that. That's how they manage to work as an army, especially because their other guns certainly aren't gonna do squat

 Vaktathi wrote:
To be fair, there have always been IG units able to do that. That's how they manage to work as an army, especially because their other guns certainly aren't gonna do squat

Not really. Vets with three specials were a product of 4th Edition, and they became instantly popular for obvious reasons. Prior to that, if you wanted one squad with that firepower, you had to take a Special Weapon Squad. At BS3. And no transport. My point being that there used to be compromises and trade-offs when building a list. Elite units with high pricetags and/or limited range and mobility were the ones packing the heat. S10 was a rarity and for good reason. Nowadays, IG can run 15 LR Demolishers in one CAD and still be Battle Forged.

If GW hadn't dug this hole, I'd genuinely feel bad for them. There is no easy way to fix the current arms race without pissing off the playerbase (again).