This isn't that big of an issue as all vehicles etc. are weakened as they are damaged, but I do see the point of it in 8th. Before when the game was more complicated, it was fine as its more realistic, but there isn't really a need for realism in 8th as they got rid of a lot of realist rules. My main gripe is just the annoyance of having to remember how many wounds its taken and corresponding that to the codex. I'd prefer it just be simplify and get rid of the damage, as it isn't really going to change the dynamic of the game as everyone will be rid of the rule. Plus its not that realistic, we don't have infantry damage, they can for instance lose an arm and become half as effective. Plus the more damage they take the less effective they are and the longer the game needs to be. I think 8th was the perfect edition to just get rid of the idea. Plus you pay 200pnts for a unit that is only worth 200pnts for a few game turns. How does everyone else feel about vehicle etc. damage?

It's for balance.

The whole point is that they are less effective as they take damage. It's so that the player attacking a vehicle gets some reward for damaging it even if they don't destroy it. This puts it somewhat on an even footing with infantry, where models are removed as the unit takes damage.

So broadly I'm in favour of vehicle damage. I don't what to have to completely destroy each Knight before there is some reduction in my opponent's power, all the while they are blowing up my models.

What we could look at is exactly which stats degrade and by how much. There are some vehicles and monsters where they may have missed the mark here.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
This isn't that big of an issue as all vehicles etc. are weakened as they are damaged, but I do see the point of it in 8th. Before when the game was more complicated, it was fine as its more realistic, but there isn't really a need for realism in 8th as they got rid of a lot of realist rules. My main gripe is just the annoyance of having to remember how many wounds its taken and corresponding to the codex. I'd prefer it just be simplify and get rid of the damage as it isn't really going to change the dynamic of the game as everyone will be rid of the rule. Plus its not that realistic, we don't have infantry damage, they can for instance lose an arm and become half as effective. Plus the more damage they take the less effective they are and the longer the game needs to be. I think 8th was the perfect edition to just get rid of the idea. How does everyone else fell about vehicle etc. damage?

Its fine. Its only for vehicles and monsters with more than 9 wounds, and it follows a really simple pattern - If they lose half their wounds, they go down a level and their WS and BS decreases by 1. If they lose half again, it goes down another level and it decreases by 1 again. The move stat is a little trickier, but the general pattern seems to be that they lose 1/3 movement at a time.

Also, infantry losing a limb is already represented in the game; its called being removed as a casualty. The wound pool being reduced to 0 doesn't just mean death, it can also refer to any form of incapacitation, including dismemberment.

I really like degrading profiles. If CP regen weren't such a problem, I'd even be fine with the amount of "shoot as if full wounds" stratagems running around.

Degrading profiles helps establish more "size tiers" in the game, which helps to differentiate weapon and power capabilities. Different weapons are better versus 1-wound models than 2-wound models. Some weapons that are good against 2-wound models aren't great against 3-wound models. 3-5 wound models feel pretty similar, and are really tough, especially in a squad. 6-9 wound models are beasts and dreadnaughts and cool stuff, but can't be targeted even if characters, and you can take 5-8 wounds off of them at no ill effect! 10-14 wound models will degrade by that same amount of damage, at which point it can be more beneficial to leave a limping unit alive while targeting the full-wound models. 15+ wound models require massive investment to even hurt, but often get substantially slower as they degrade, which helps plan your moves against them, even if they still remain very deadly.

Those are all great differentiations to have! Having degrading profiles on big stuff is a major part of that.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
This isn't that big of an issue as all vehicles etc. are weakened as they are damaged, but I do see the point of it in 8th. Before when the game was more complicated, it was fine as its more realistic, but there isn't really a need for realism in 8th as they got rid of a lot of realist rules. My main gripe is just the annoyance of having to remember how many wounds its taken and corresponding to the codex. I'd prefer it just be simplify and get rid of the damage as it isn't really going to change the dynamic of the game as everyone will be rid of the rule. Plus its not that realistic, we don't have infantry damage, they can for instance lose an arm and become half as effective. Plus the more damage they take the less effective they are and the longer the game needs to be. I think 8th was the perfect edition to just get rid of the idea. How does everyone else fell about vehicle etc. damage?

Its one of the better changes - it was a very poor part of previous editions that vehicles could and often were one shoted whereas Monstrous Creatures and OP vehicles presenting to be them were happy until they lost their last wound.

Infantry Damage is normally - removed from the table.

If they had more and better datacards it would be helpful - seriously the layout and font size on the Knights ones is terrible.

 Stux wrote:
It's for balance.

The whole point is that they are less effective as they take damage. It's so that the player attacking a vehicle gets some reward for damaging it even if they don't destroy it. This puts it somewhat on an even footing with infantry, where models are removed as the unit takes damage.

So broadly I'm in favour of vehicle damage. I don't what to have to completely destroy each Knight before there is some reduction in my opponent's power, all the while they are blowing up my models.

What we could look at is exactly which stats degrade and by how much. There are some vehicles and monsters where they may have missed the mark here.

That's true.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Its fine. Its only for vehicles and monsters with more than 9 wounds, and it follows a really simple pattern - If they lose half their wounds, they go down a level and their WS and BS decreases by 1. If they lose half again, it goes down another level and it decreases by 1 again. The move stat is a little trickier, but the general pattern seems to be that they lose 1/3 movement at a time.

Also, infantry losing a limb is already represented in the game; its called being removed as a casualty. The wound pool being reduced to 0 doesn't just mean death, it can also refer to any form of incapacitation, including dismemberment.

Stompa degrades every quarter. Being walker from faction most suitable for slow degration...

No, this is one of the better changes 8th brought about. Though I dislike how much has been cut from the vehicle rules, the fact that they are treated the same as MC is a good change and it's really not that hard to keep track of. Seems like anything that requires a piece of paper and tally marks is treated as to complex now.

I miss damage tables and Weapon Destoryeds and Immobilizes, but don't miss a demon with 1 HP left tearing through squads and squads like it was unhurt.

Plus, a Melta Gun or Brightlance could actually do something.

I think degrading profile should not affect BS.

Lets get rid of measuring and dice rolling while were at it!

“All this measuring and dice rolling is so complicated!”

 Xenomancers wrote:
I think degrading profile should not affect BS.

Arguably, it makes sense on most units. Targeting systems can be damaged, for example, or the pain from grievous wounds a large creature has suffered can affect their focus.
But I wouldn't be opposed to downgrading BS only happening at the lowest level (usually at 1/4 wounds)

-

I think the degradation is a great mechanic. It's simple and conveys a good cinematic effect.

 Xenomancers wrote:
I think degrading profile should not affect BS.

Hmm. I feel offensive power needs to be reduced though. Keeping full hitting power right up to the point it goes boom feels too powerful. I think some profiles take away too much BS though. Perhaps only losing 1 BS at half wounds and that's it would be enough. Perhaps none for BS 5+ vehicles, as a bone to throw Orks!

Also melee monsters shouldn't have degrading attacks AND WS on the same profile. Linear decrease is one thing, but quadratic is awful!

I like the degrading profiles. Not all of them degrade as I would think, but they are certainly a decent compromise between cinematic and realistic effects of damage.

Slowing down to represent damage to engines and drive trains. Lower BS to represent damage to weapons and targeting systems, even crew damage. Fewer attacks on Monsters to represent, you know, arms being blown off and such. On the whole, I'm quite happy with this rule effect.

In the world of media, anytime a headline is presented as a question the answer is always no.

So, no.

I love the damage because I don't have to kill a vehicle to make it less of a threat and/or force my opponent to spend CP to make it shoot normal.

Also an easy way to remember the damage chart for MC and vehicles (and I'm not saying it is 100% everytime as there are exceptions iirc) But as soon as you hit the 50% mark for wounds then you drop to the 2nd damaged tier. then again at 25%. For instance necron vehicles with 14 wounds. They don't use the 2nd profile until they are reduced to 7 wounds then again at 3.

I wish they treated vehicles like vehiclrs and not just big boxy infantry. Watching a pistol kill a tank makes no sense. One of the reasons i moved to bolt action.

Daston wrote:
I wish they treated vehicles like vehiclrs and not just big boxy infantry. Watching a pistol kill a tank makes no sense. One of the reasons i moved to bolt action.

...

Did that happen often?

Was it a full strength Dark Angel Veterans squad dual wielding Plasma Pistols?

No, it doesn't happen often - hardly ever. But if it is mathematically possible (after all it only takes what 1500 lasgun shots to kill a Land Raider?) the game is garbage. Personally people can continue to move to Bolt Action. If you're that angsty about game rules...good riddance.

 Elbows wrote:
No, it doesn't happen often - hardly ever. But if it is mathematically possible (after all it only takes what 1500 lasgun shots to kill a Land Raider?) the game is garbage. Personally people can continue to move to Bolt Action. If you're that angsty about game rules...good riddance.

I'm sorry, but that's a very silly argument.

I mean, I can't tell you what you can or can't find fun of course. But this basically never happens. Of all the things to be annoyed about in 40k, this would be bottom of the list.

In fact, I see it as a feature. No matter what your opponent brings, victory is never truly impossible.

I mean I've done some real damage with Combi Bolters on Chaos Bikers by using Veterans of the Long War to wound on a 4+. Or with Eldar using Doom combo'd with Bladestorm to get some solid damage on most vehicles. A pistol is probably an exaggeration to make a point, but small arms can definitely threaten tanks in the right circumstances.

That said, Small Arms are much bigger in 40K than Bolt Action. A Bolter is a rocket propelled grenade launcher. Bolt Action has WW2 Bolt Action Rifles and SMGs. While I enjoy both Bolt Action and 40K, I think that vehicles in 40K do a good job in the sci fi environment. I also find them to be more durable than they were in the past, as even though Las Cannons and other weapons can destroy them pretty quickly, they can't be taken out in one hit anymore. I mean 40K (and BA for that matter) is a far cry from realism, but having Dreadnaughts actually work similar to a Carnifex feels right.

I was feeling okay about vehicles but I watched a 10 man intercessor do 8 wounds to an armiger with rapid firing bolters under Bobby G.

Now I'm back i the why bring them set.

Reemule wrote:
I was feeling okay about vehicles but I watched a 10 man intercessor do 8 wounds to an armiger with rapid firing bolters under Bobby G.

Now I'm back i the why bring them set.

That sounds more like a Bobby G issue than a Vehicle issue.

Reemule wrote:
I was feeling okay about vehicles but I watched a 10 man intercessor do 8 wounds to an armiger with rapid firing bolters under Bobby G.

Now I'm back i the why bring them set.

This is bad logic.

 Stux wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I think degrading profile should not affect BS.

Hmm. I feel offensive power needs to be reduced though. Keeping full hitting power right up to the point it goes boom feels too powerful. I think some profiles take away too much BS though. Perhaps only losing 1 BS at half wounds and that's it would be enough. Perhaps none for BS 5+ vehicles, as a bone to throw Orks!

Also melee monsters shouldn't have degrading attacks AND WS on the same profile. Linear decrease is one thing, but quadratic is awful!

Say that to the toxicrene, it loses WS, attacks AND strenght.

 Stux wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
No, it doesn't happen often - hardly ever. But if it is mathematically possible (after all it only takes what 1500 lasgun shots to kill a Land Raider?) the game is garbage. Personally people can continue to move to Bolt Action. If you're that angsty about game rules...good riddance.

I'm sorry, but that's a very silly argument.

I mean, I can't tell you what you can or can't find fun of course. But this basically never happens. Of all the things to be annoyed about in 40k, this would be bottom of the list.

In fact, I see it as a feature. No matter what your opponent brings, victory is never truly impossible.

I'm poking fun at people saying that...

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
This isn't that big of an issue as all vehicles etc. are weakened as they are damaged, but I do see the point of it in 8th. Before when the game was more complicated, it was fine as its more realistic, but there isn't really a need for realism in 8th as they got rid of a lot of realist rules. My main gripe is just the annoyance of having to remember how many wounds its taken and corresponding to the codex. I'd prefer it just be simplify and get rid of the damage as it isn't really going to change the dynamic of the game as everyone will be rid of the rule. Plus its not that realistic, we don't have infantry damage, they can for instance lose an arm and become half as effective. Plus the more damage they take the less effective they are and the longer the game needs to be. I think 8th was the perfect edition to just get rid of the idea. How does everyone else fell about vehicle etc. damage?

Warhammer 40K Wound Trackers

SG

I think overall, with a few exceptions, that a great many of the vehicles in this game could use a re pointing. Mostly down.

 Elbows wrote:

 Stux wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
No, it doesn't happen often - hardly ever. But if it is mathematically possible (after all it only takes what 1500 lasgun shots to kill a Land Raider?) the game is garbage. Personally people can continue to move to Bolt Action. If you're that angsty about game rules...good riddance.

I'm sorry, but that's a very silly argument.

I mean, I can't tell you what you can or can't find fun of course. But this basically never happens. Of all the things to be annoyed about in 40k, this would be bottom of the list.

In fact, I see it as a feature. No matter what your opponent brings, victory is never truly impossible.

I'm poking fun at people saying that...

Welp... That went right over my head then didn't it!

Apologies


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'll be honest, I didn't notice you weren't the same person who originally posted the issue hah

I do miss that low strength weapons not being able to damage high toughness/AV model. A las gun shouldn't be able to hurt a landraider.

HoundsofDemos wrote:
I do miss that low strength weapons not being able to damage high toughness/AV model. A las gun shouldn't be able to hurt a landraider.

I get this sentiment, but I prefer things that need to roll to wound or not, even if it's a low chance. What's more fun? Rolling 20 dice and hoping for that low chance of wounding, or rolling nothing because nothing happens? While the second one may be "more accurate", the first is "more fun", because it lets the players do something, even if that something isn't very useful. It makes people be active in the game. I love the Murder Sword, but it's very anti-climactic when you get it to the targeted character, as it's straight hits=mortal wounds. That's crazy, since Chaos Lord that's likely wielding this is hitting on 2+ rerollable anyways. It's still okay, because it's still possible to flub, but it's not nearly as interesting or fun as attacking with a Power Fist. The Power Fist is much worse most of the time, but it's also more fun most of the time too.

HoundsofDemos wrote:
I do miss that low strength weapons not being able to damage high toughness/AV model. A las gun shouldn't be able to hurt a landraider.

It usually doesn't. On the other hand we now don't have armies that can't be hurt my the majority of the opposing army

I think that the implementation of vehicle damage is the real problem. Tying the degrading capabilities of vehicles and monsters to wound brackets increases bookkeeping unnecessarily- most of them degrade in different ways, causing you to check the data sheet every turn to track the effects. They don't all make sense, either.

I think MEDGe implements this well with # of weapons that can be fired tied to the wound stat of large models on a 1-for-1 basis, and at half health they move at half their full movement characteristic. It's simple, makes sense, and you can remember it without staring at the rulebook.

They also kept some semblance of bigger models operating differently from regular infantry in that they can move through enemy units at the cost of receiving defensive fire, and into their rear arc to boot. Might be a nice addition (dreads and the like especially) to make them feel "right" instead of, say, rhinos "fighting" in CC with their doors, or something.

 Yarium wrote:


I get this sentiment, but I prefer things that need to roll to wound or not, even if it's a low chance. What's more fun? Rolling 20 dice and hoping for that low chance of wounding, or rolling nothing because nothing happens? While the second one may be "more accurate", the first is "more fun", because it lets the players do something, even if that something isn't very useful. It makes people be active in the game. I love the Murder Sword, but it's very anti-climactic when you get it to the targeted character, as it's straight hits=mortal wounds. That's crazy, since Chaos Lord that's likely wielding this is hitting on 2+ rerollable anyways. It's still okay, because it's still possible to flub, but it's not nearly as interesting or fun as attacking with a Power Fist. The Power Fist is much worse most of the time, but it's also more fun most of the time too.

Maybe, but you have to balance *fun* with *waste of time*. Look at overwatch for instance, it frequently takes a lot of time for very little if any effect - unless the unit being charged has flame throwers. Rather than an Obliterator Squad generating the profile of its weapons, then rolling and maybe getting 1 or 2 sixes, it makes more sense to just not have units able to over watch unless they have flamers or a special rule that lets them over watch on a 5+ maybe. Maybe its fun to imaging your guardsmen desperately spraying las guns at an income Zerker squad, but most of the time it just takes time to resolve for a negligible game impact.

More often then not when I'm doing that "Rolling 20 dice and hoping for that low chance of wounding" I am thinking to myself, why am I doing this, this is a waste of my time and my opponents time.

Another thing to think about is all vehicle army lists. In prior editions, players that didn't have enough "anti-tank" weaponry were pretty boned by these lists.
By allowing low strength weapons to at least have some chance to wound high T models, you mitigate this match up causing an immediate forfeit.
With Knight lists being around, I am thankful that all my guns can somehow contribute to the game rather than just being safely ignored while the Knight player takes out all weapons that can hurt them.

Maybe Lasguns shouldn't be able to take down a Land Raider, but Bolters surely should have an affect on Rhinos and Grav Tanks, even if minimal
Keeping both players engaged is an important part of the game.

-

 Yarium wrote:

HoundsofDemos wrote:
I do miss that low strength weapons not being able to damage high toughness/AV model. A las gun shouldn't be able to hurt a landraider.

I get this sentiment, but I prefer things that need to roll to wound or not, even if it's a low chance. What's more fun? Rolling 20 dice and hoping for that low chance of wounding, or rolling nothing because nothing happens? While the second one may be "more accurate", the first is "more fun", because it lets the players do something, even if that something isn't very useful. It makes people be active in the game. I love the Murder Sword, but it's very anti-climactic when you get it to the targeted character, as it's straight hits=mortal wounds. That's crazy, since Chaos Lord that's likely wielding this is hitting on 2+ rerollable anyways. It's still okay, because it's still possible to flub, but it's not nearly as interesting or fun as attacking with a Power Fist. The Power Fist is much worse most of the time, but it's also more fun most of the time too.

I find it fun to have to make strategic choices rather than just roll dice, things happen. This is one of the reasons I miss vehicle facings, since it required you to either hit a tank with an actual anti tank weapon or you had to maneuver and get behind it. Same with making sure weapons actually lined up a shot. I like that vehicles and MC work the same way but I think they simplified it a bit to much

 ServiceGames wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
This isn't that big of an issue as all vehicles etc. are weakened as they are damaged, but I do see the point of it in 8th. Before when the game was more complicated, it was fine as its more realistic, but there isn't really a need for realism in 8th as they got rid of a lot of realist rules. My main gripe is just the annoyance of having to remember how many wounds its taken and corresponding to the codex. I'd prefer it just be simplify and get rid of the damage as it isn't really going to change the dynamic of the game as everyone will be rid of the rule. Plus its not that realistic, we don't have infantry damage, they can for instance lose an arm and become half as effective. Plus the more damage they take the less effective they are and the longer the game needs to be. I think 8th was the perfect edition to just get rid of the idea. How does everyone else fell about vehicle etc. damage?

Warhammer 40K Wound Trackers

SG

I lolled. Have an exalt!

If the OP has trouble with tracking things like this they'd gak a brick if they played Warmachine or Battletech...

 akaean wrote:
Maybe, but you have to balance *fun* with *waste of time*. Look at overwatch for instance, it frequently takes a lot of time for very little if any effect - unless the unit being charged has flame throwers. Rather than an Obliterator Squad generating the profile of its weapons, then rolling and maybe getting 1 or 2 sixes, it makes more sense to just not have units able to over watch unless they have flamers or a special rule that lets them over watch on a 5+ maybe. Maybe its fun to imaging your guardsmen desperately spraying las guns at an income Zerker squad, but most of the time it just takes time to resolve for a negligible game impact.

More often then not when I'm doing that "Rolling 20 dice and hoping for that low chance of wounding" I am thinking to myself, why am I doing this, this is a waste of my time and my opponents time.

Completely understandable. And I agree with the other poster that I'd rather make decisions of consequence than "lulz, randumb". Still, just Monday night I watched a Blight-hauler get killed in Overwatch against the last 3 models in a guy's T'au force. They were new to the game, and for the T'au player, it was a moment of pride and accomplishment, regardless of the game's ultimate end! You don't need to look far to find people saying "And then, the Grot put through the last wound! It was hilarious!". I agree, it gets silly when rolling huge amounts of dice and having no effect time and again, but the spikes of hilarity are memorable. Back during 3rd, I had a Termagant (with Mutation to have a Venom Cannon) take out a Rhino by using Death or Glory, and getting the perfect set of dice. Anything less, pretty much, would've resulted in my Gaunt going squish, but it wasn't a waste of time, because it worked, and I remember it today, almost 20 years later.

 Galef wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I think degrading profile should not affect BS.

Arguably, it makes sense on most units. Targeting systems can be damaged, for example, or the pain from grievous wounds a large creature has suffered can affect their focus.
But I wouldn't be opposed to downgrading BS only happening at the lowest level (usually at 1/4 wounds)

-

Well when it becomes a -2 bs at the lowest profile. On a vehical that can't move and shoot without penalty. Now you are probably hitting on 6's. My redemptor dread suffers so badly from being degraded. Lightning fast reflexes I can't even hit!!!

 Xenomancers wrote:
Well when it becomes a -2 bs at the lowest profile. On a vehical that can't move and shoot without penalty. Now you are probably hitting on 6's. My redemptor dread suffers so badly from being degraded. Lightning fast reflexes I can't even hit!!!

I fail to see the problem here. Your unit takes a lot of damage and is minimally effective when it is badly shot up and about to die. Sorry that you have to cope with having less than optimal firepower, but hitting on 6s at the end is entirely appropriate.

 Elbows wrote:
No, it doesn't happen often - hardly ever. But if it is mathematically possible (after all it only takes what 1500 lasgun shots to kill a Land Raider?) the game is garbage. Personally people can continue to move to Bolt Action. If you're that angsty about game rules...good riddance.

You obviously never read the OP.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 ServiceGames wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
This isn't that big of an issue as all vehicles etc. are weakened as they are damaged, but I do see the point of it in 8th. Before when the game was more complicated, it was fine as its more realistic, but there isn't really a need for realism in 8th as they got rid of a lot of realist rules. My main gripe is just the annoyance of having to remember how many wounds its taken and corresponding to the codex. I'd prefer it just be simplify and get rid of the damage as it isn't really going to change the dynamic of the game as everyone will be rid of the rule. Plus its not that realistic, we don't have infantry damage, they can for instance lose an arm and become half as effective. Plus the more damage they take the less effective they are and the longer the game needs to be. I think 8th was the perfect edition to just get rid of the idea. How does everyone else fell about vehicle etc. damage?

Warhammer 40K Wound Trackers

SG

I lolled. Have an exalt!

If the OP has trouble with tracking things like this they'd gak a brick if they played Warmachine or Battletech...

I don't have a problem with tracking things. I'd just rather not as degrading damage doesn't make sense to me. Its completely arbitrary to degrade vehicles or big things, when nothing else is degraded. Its pointless, all it really says is vehicles and big things are 'special'. Considering that the rule is not realistic, its odd.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ServiceGames wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
This isn't that big of an issue as all vehicles etc. are weakened as they are damaged, but I do see the point of it in 8th. Before when the game was more complicated, it was fine as its more realistic, but there isn't really a need for realism in 8th as they got rid of a lot of realist rules. My main gripe is just the annoyance of having to remember how many wounds its taken and corresponding to the codex. I'd prefer it just be simplify and get rid of the damage as it isn't really going to change the dynamic of the game as everyone will be rid of the rule. Plus its not that realistic, we don't have infantry damage, they can for instance lose an arm and become half as effective. Plus the more damage they take the less effective they are and the longer the game needs to be. I think 8th was the perfect edition to just get rid of the idea. How does everyone else fell about vehicle etc. damage?

Warhammer 40K Wound Trackers

SG

That's not the point I was making.

Ummmm....

The same thing happens in both of those games I mentioned.

 Grimtuff wrote:
Ummmm....

The same thing happens in both of those games I mentioned.

So.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Well when it becomes a -2 bs at the lowest profile. On a vehical that can't move and shoot without penalty. Now you are probably hitting on 6's. My redemptor dread suffers so badly from being degraded. Lightning fast reflexes I can't even hit!!!

I fail to see the problem here. Your unit takes a lot of damage and is minimally effective when it is badly shot up and about to die. Sorry that you have to cope with having less than optimal firepower, but hitting on 6s at the end is entirely appropriate.

Then it shouldn't be paying for 13 wounds. It effectively only has 10 and really only 7 quality wounds. This unit is over 200 points.

I'd much prefer some kind of randomly generated damage result every-time you pass a wounds threshold. Like perhaps only 1 of the 3 degrading stats should be degrading on a D3.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Well when it becomes a -2 bs at the lowest profile. On a vehical that can't move and shoot without penalty. Now you are probably hitting on 6's. My redemptor dread suffers so badly from being degraded. Lightning fast reflexes I can't even hit!!!

I fail to see the problem here. Your unit takes a lot of damage and is minimally effective when it is badly shot up and about to die. Sorry that you have to cope with having less than optimal firepower, but hitting on 6s at the end is entirely appropriate.

Then it shouldn't be paying for 13 wounds. It effectively only has 10 and really only 7 quality wounds. This unit is over 200 points.

I'd much prefer some kind of randomly generated damage result every-time you pass a wounds threshold. Like perhaps only 1 of the 3 degrading stats should be degrading on a D3.

Someone that is actually thinking rather than just throwing around snarky comments.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
Ummmm....

The same thing happens in both of those games I mentioned.

So.

You attempt to point out that this is a feature unique to 40k and something that as a result, "makes no sense".

There are several games that use this (many more than I can mention off of the top of my head) as a way of representing degrading performance so it's hardly something that does not make sense if several companies in isolation of one another came to the same conclusion of how to best represent this.

GW themselves got it from AoS- It was one of the few things a LOT of players wanted ported over prior to 8th.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Well when it becomes a -2 bs at the lowest profile. On a vehical that can't move and shoot without penalty. Now you are probably hitting on 6's. My redemptor dread suffers so badly from being degraded. Lightning fast reflexes I can't even hit!!!

I fail to see the problem here. Your unit takes a lot of damage and is minimally effective when it is badly shot up and about to die. Sorry that you have to cope with having less than optimal firepower, but hitting on 6s at the end is entirely appropriate.

Then it shouldn't be paying for 13 wounds. It effectively only has 10 and really only 7 quality wounds. This unit is over 200 points.

I'd much prefer some kind of randomly generated damage result every-time you pass a wounds threshold. Like perhaps only 1 of the 3 degrading stats should be degrading on a D3.

Someone that is actually thinking rather than just throwing around snarky comments.

This right here, is irony.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Then it shouldn't be paying for 13 wounds. It effectively only has 10 and really only 7 quality wounds. This unit is over 200 points.

How are you paying for extra wounds? It's not like this is a single unit that degrades, every vehicle has the same rule so there is no cost difference. Your dread and a LRBT pay for the same "quality" wounds.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
Ummmm....

The same thing happens in both of those games I mentioned.

So.

You attempt to point out that this is a feature unique to 40k and something that as a result, "makes no sense".

There are several games that use this (many more than I can mention off of the top of my head) as a way of representing degrading performance so it's hardly something that does not make sense if several companies in isolation of one another came to the same conclusion of how to best represent this.

GW themselves got it from AoS- It was one of the few things a LOT of players wanted ported over prior to 8th.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Well when it becomes a -2 bs at the lowest profile. On a vehical that can't move and shoot without penalty. Now you are probably hitting on 6's. My redemptor dread suffers so badly from being degraded. Lightning fast reflexes I can't even hit!!!

I fail to see the problem here. Your unit takes a lot of damage and is minimally effective when it is badly shot up and about to die. Sorry that you have to cope with having less than optimal firepower, but hitting on 6s at the end is entirely appropriate.

Then it shouldn't be paying for 13 wounds. It effectively only has 10 and really only 7 quality wounds. This unit is over 200 points.

I'd much prefer some kind of randomly generated damage result every-time you pass a wounds threshold. Like perhaps only 1 of the 3 degrading stats should be degrading on a D3.

Someone that is actually thinking rather than just throwing around snarky comments.

This right here, is irony.

I never said it was unique to 40k, I don't play any other games how would I know.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:


I never said it was unique to 40k, I don't play any other games how would I know.

You see, there's this little thing called "inference". You should look it up.

Your OP implied the above and it's not hard for others to infer that from it.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:


I never said it was unique to 40k, I don't play any other games how would I know.

You see, there's this little thing called "inference". You should look it up.

Your OP implied the above and it's not hard for others to infer that from it.

You mean 'Imply'.

I never even once mention 40k in the OP, just 8th so how you thought that...

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Galef wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I think degrading profile should not affect BS.

Arguably, it makes sense on most units. Targeting systems can be damaged, for example, or the pain from grievous wounds a large creature has suffered can affect their focus.
But I wouldn't be opposed to downgrading BS only happening at the lowest level (usually at 1/4 wounds)

-

Well when it becomes a -2 bs at the lowest profile. On a vehical that can't move and shoot without penalty. Now you are probably hitting on 6's. My redemptor dread suffers so badly from being degraded. Lightning fast reflexes I can't even hit!!!

That's a failure of the game designers to add a "natural 6s always hit" rule than poor design of vehicle damage charts

-

 Galef wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Galef wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I think degrading profile should not affect BS.

Arguably, it makes sense on most units. Targeting systems can be damaged, for example, or the pain from grievous wounds a large creature has suffered can affect their focus.
But I wouldn't be opposed to downgrading BS only happening at the lowest level (usually at 1/4 wounds)

-

Well when it becomes a -2 bs at the lowest profile. On a vehical that can't move and shoot without penalty. Now you are probably hitting on 6's. My redemptor dread suffers so badly from being degraded. Lightning fast reflexes I can't even hit!!!

That's a failure of the game designers to add a "natural 6s always hit" rule than poor design of vehicle damage charts

-

I'm ambivalent on 6's always wounding. I hate the flavour and realism they took away, as a lasgun damaging a tank is silly. but its better for the game.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:


I never said it was unique to 40k, I don't play any other games how would I know.

You see, there's this little thing called "inference". You should look it up.

Your OP implied the above and it's not hard for others to infer that from it.

You mean 'Imply'.

I never even once mention 40k in the OP, just 8th so how you thought that...

Wut.

In what way is 8th not 40k? Grimtuff just used the word imply. Are you living in a different reality where one word means two different things to you?

 Grimskul wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:


I never said it was unique to 40k, I don't play any other games how would I know.

You see, there's this little thing called "inference". You should look it up.

Your OP implied the above and it's not hard for others to infer that from it.

You mean 'Imply'.

I never even once mention 40k in the OP, just 8th so how you thought that...

Wut.

In what way is 8th not 40k? Grimtuff just used the word imply. Are you living in a different reality where one word means two different things to you?

Jesus. I never said 8th is not 40k. I said I never said 40k, so I didn't how he can Imply, that I was comparing it to other game systems. If I said 40k instead of 8th, then maybe he could think that.

You're posting on a 40k subforum. Anyone with a functioning piece of grey matter between their ears can infer you're referring to 40k.

The fact you think this is an unusual feature, despite there being many other systems that use similar methods infers to the reader you may be unfamiliar with this fact.

HoundsofDemos wrote:
I do miss that low strength weapons not being able to damage high toughness/AV model. A las gun shouldn't be able to hurt a landraider.

I actually agree. I feel as if, maybe, if T>2x S, than the attack fails. There should probably be a point where weapons are ineffectual. And vice versa - a lascannon should probably automatically wound, say, a marine. Or a grot.

 Grimtuff wrote:


You're posting on a 40k subforum. Anyone with a functioning piece of grey matter between their ears can infer you're referring to 40k.

The fact you think this is an unusual feature, despite there being many other systems that use similar methods infers to the reader you may be unfamiliar with this fact.

Wow. Do I have to spell everything out for you. I never said it was unusual in and of itself. I said its arbitrary, when you only have vehicle/big things being damaged or degraded, but for some reason infantry etc. can take a lascannon hit and still skip towards the enemy.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:


You're posting on a 40k subforum. Anyone with a functioning piece of grey matter between their ears can infer you're referring to 40k.

The fact you think this is an unusual feature, despite there being many other systems that use similar methods infers to the reader you may be unfamiliar with this fact.

Wow. Do I have to spell everything out for you. I never said it was unusual in and of itself. I said its arbitrary, when you only have vehicle/big things being damaged or degraded, but for some reason infantry etc. can take a lascannon hit and still skip towards the enemy.

Seeing as you edit everything multiple times as you make little sense of anything let's quote the OP in it's current state (currently on 3 edits) for posterity.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
This isn't that big of an issue as all vehicles etc. are weakened as they are damaged, but I do see the point of it in 8th. Before when the game was more complicated, it was fine as its more realistic, but there isn't really a need for realism in 8th as they got rid of a lot of realist rules. My main gripe is just the annoyance of having to remember how many wounds its taken and corresponding that to the codex. I'd prefer it just be simplify and get rid of the damage, as it isn't really going to change the dynamic of the game as everyone will be rid of the rule. Plus its not that realistic, we don't have infantry damage, they can for instance lose an arm and become half as effective. Plus the more damage they take the less effective they are and the longer the game needs to be. I think 8th was the perfect edition to just get rid of the idea. Plus you pay 200pnts for a unit that is only worth 200pnts for a few game turns. How does everyone else feel about vehicle etc. damage?

So, if this is edited again the above is the 3rd edit version.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:


You're posting on a 40k subforum. Anyone with a functioning piece of grey matter between their ears can infer you're referring to 40k.

The fact you think this is an unusual feature, despite there being many other systems that use similar methods infers to the reader you may be unfamiliar with this fact.

Wow. Do I have to spell everything out for you. I never said it was unusual in and of itself. I said its arbitrary, when you only have vehicle/big things being damaged or degraded, but for some reason infantry etc. can take a lascannon hit and still skip towards the enemy.

Seeing as you edit everything multiple times as you make little sense of anything let's quote the OP in it's current state (currently on 3 edits) for posterity.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
This isn't that big of an issue as all vehicles etc. are weakened as they are damaged, but I do see the point of it in 8th. Before when the game was more complicated, it was fine as its more realistic, but there isn't really a need for realism in 8th as they got rid of a lot of realist rules. My main gripe is just the annoyance of having to remember how many wounds its taken and corresponding that to the codex. I'd prefer it just be simplify and get rid of the damage, as it isn't really going to change the dynamic of the game as everyone will be rid of the rule. Plus its not that realistic, we don't have infantry damage, they can for instance lose an arm and become half as effective. Plus the more damage they take the less effective they are and the longer the game needs to be. I think 8th was the perfect edition to just get rid of the idea. Plus you pay 200pnts for a unit that is only worth 200pnts for a few game turns. How does everyone else feel about vehicle etc. damage?

So, if this is edited again the above is the 3rd edit version.

And this was the first one, which is quoted:

This isn't that big of an issue as all vehicles etc. are weakened as they are damaged, but I do see the point of it in 8th. Before when the game was more complicated, it was fine as its more realistic, but there isn't really a need for realism in 8th as they got rid of a lot of realist rules. My main gripe is just the annoyance of having to remember how many wounds its taken and corresponding to the codex. I'd prefer it just be simplify and get rid of the damage as it isn't really going to change the dynamic of the game as everyone will be rid of the rule. Plus its not that realistic, we don't have infantry damage, they can for instance lose an arm and become half as effective. Plus the more damage they take the less effective they are and the longer the game needs to be. I think 8th was the perfect edition to just get rid of the idea. How does everyone else fell about vehicle etc. damage?

Just spelling errors and grammar and adding that points thing that someone mentioned. Its the exact same. Still doesn't help you with your reading comprehension.

Listen are we going to argue pettily like this every time, just because we had a heated argument before, listen I'm over it, I suggest you do the same and let it go.

I see both sides of the argument. I like the degrading, but I think it's too harsh. Take a SM Rhino for example. It doesn't have any guns of note. It's main function is to move troops faster. It takes 5 wounds and now it's the same speed as the unit inside. So, essentially they get a transport of 5 wounds and at it's current price point your better taking a second unit instead of its transport. But on the flip side, I don't want 1 wound Hive Tyrants flying around molesting everything. But yet again, on Knights we need them to degrade to balance them with smaller units. The 100/50/25 scale should be adjusted based on starting wounds.

Example:
Rhino - 10/3/1
HT - 12/4/2
IK - 24/12/6

Or maybe even just a 100%/50% scale for smaller vehicles?

 deviantduck wrote:
Or maybe even just a 100%/50% scale for smaller vehicles?

I actually like this idea. Right now anything with 10+ wounds has a 3 level degrading scale, but maybe things with 10-15 wounds should only have 2 levels

-

The entire problem with 8th edition right now is that the things with degrading profiles are too OP for their points value and just their general use on the table becomes cancerous, especially Knights. You really want Imperial Knights, among the most broken things on the table right now, to not lose ballistic skill as they become damaged? That seems like a great way to make the game even more broken and inflate the number of people taking knights as allies to games.

 Yarium wrote:

HoundsofDemos wrote:
I do miss that low strength weapons not being able to damage high toughness/AV model. A las gun shouldn't be able to hurt a landraider.

I get this sentiment, but I prefer things that need to roll to wound or not, even if it's a low chance. What's more fun? Rolling 20 dice and hoping for that low chance of wounding, or rolling nothing because nothing happens? While the second one may be "more accurate", the first is "more fun", because it lets the players do something, even if that something isn't very useful. It makes people be active in the game. I love the Murder Sword, but it's very anti-climactic when you get it to the targeted character, as it's straight hits=mortal wounds. That's crazy, since Chaos Lord that's likely wielding this is hitting on 2+ rerollable anyways. It's still okay, because it's still possible to flub, but it's not nearly as interesting or fun as attacking with a Power Fist. The Power Fist is much worse most of the time, but it's also more fun most of the time too.

As mentioned before, while rolling 100 lasguns once is fun, having to roll 100 lasguns multiple times over multiple shooting phases just hoping for 3 or 5 sixes is just a waste of time that gums up the game's speed without adding much "fun" at all to the game. While also feeling fairly silly that a bunch of lost strength weapons can somehow injure something with over twice the toughness. Plus with split fire it's not like you even need to target guns that won't wound on the things the lascannon team in your squad is shooting at.

 Wyzilla wrote:


The entire problem with 8th edition right now is that the things with degrading profiles are too OP for their points value and just their general use on the table becomes cancerous, especially Knights. You really want Imperial Knights, among the most broken things on the table right now, to not lose ballistic skill as they become damaged? That seems like a great way to make the game even more broken and inflate the number of people taking knights as allies to games.

Nah, let's have vehicles be able to be killed in a single shot like the previous 5 editions of the game. That'll make them better. /s

 Wyzilla wrote:


The entire problem with 8th edition right now is that the things with degrading profiles are too OP for their points value and just their general use on the table becomes cancerous, especially Knights. You really want Imperial Knights, among the most broken things on the table right now, to not lose ballistic skill as they become damaged? That seems like a great way to make the game even more broken and inflate the number of people taking knights as allies to games.

 Yarium wrote:

HoundsofDemos wrote:
I do miss that low strength weapons not being able to damage high toughness/AV model. A las gun shouldn't be able to hurt a landraider.

I get this sentiment, but I prefer things that need to roll to wound or not, even if it's a low chance. What's more fun? Rolling 20 dice and hoping for that low chance of wounding, or rolling nothing because nothing happens? While the second one may be "more accurate", the first is "more fun", because it lets the players do something, even if that something isn't very useful. It makes people be active in the game. I love the Murder Sword, but it's very anti-climactic when you get it to the targeted character, as it's straight hits=mortal wounds. That's crazy, since Chaos Lord that's likely wielding this is hitting on 2+ rerollable anyways. It's still okay, because it's still possible to flub, but it's not nearly as interesting or fun as attacking with a Power Fist. The Power Fist is much worse most of the time, but it's also more fun most of the time too.

As mentioned before, while rolling 100 lasguns once is fun, having to roll 100 lasguns multiple times over multiple shooting phases just hoping for 3 or 5 sixes is just a waste of time that gums up the game's speed without adding much "fun" at all to the game. While also feeling fairly silly that a bunch of lost strength weapons can somehow injure something with over twice the toughness. Plus with split fire it's not like you even need to target guns that won't wound on the things the lascannon team in your squad is shooting at.

IK's may be broken but not every vehicle, they'll always be broken units in the game. Vehicles are not OP, they are just how they should be power-wise, vehicles used to be a joke, 4 HP for a land raider. They were like paper in 7th. but you pay gak loads for vehicles, they are supposed to hit hard. You collect DA's, you have plenty of stuff that can counter them, get a falchion and then you'll be laughing at IK's power.

Well, if you want a Tac squad with a Melta Gun to actually be a threat, maybe a chance of oneshottting vehicles isn't the worst thing for the game...

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:


The entire problem with 8th edition right now is that the things with degrading profiles are too OP for their points value and just their general use on the table becomes cancerous, especially Knights. You really want Imperial Knights, among the most broken things on the table right now, to not lose ballistic skill as they become damaged? That seems like a great way to make the game even more broken and inflate the number of people taking knights as allies to games.

Nah, let's have vehicles be able to be killed in a single shot like the previous 5 editions of the game. That'll make them better. /s

Depends on the vehicle. The big ones should be less durable than they currently are though as I mentioned in prior threads - infantry needs more firepower to realistically counter heavy armor while in turn not being terribly effective against infantry to prevent blobs of infantry becoming OP in turn. But we definitely don't want Knights stomping around with their base profile never being effected until they die.

 Stux wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
No, it doesn't happen often - hardly ever. But if it is mathematically possible (after all it only takes what 1500 lasgun shots to kill a Land Raider?) the game is garbage. Personally people can continue to move to Bolt Action. If you're that angsty about game rules...good riddance.

I'm sorry, but that's a very silly argument.

I mean, I can't tell you what you can or can't find fun of course. But this basically never happens. Of all the things to be annoyed about in 40k, this would be bottom of the list.

In fact, I see it as a feature. No matter what your opponent brings, victory is never truly impossible.

Actually it's happened a fair bit to me and it is pretty damn dumb and jarring for immersion. I recently charged so many poxwalkers (using tabletop simulator because there's no way I could get that many poxwalkers in reality) I killed an Imperial Knight in two rounds of melee with 3 squads of poxwalkers that had literally eaten the conscript blobs that were supposed to screen enemy fire (resulting in over 100 poxwalkers storming across the table in a glorious horde). It doesn't make a lick of sense that a bunch of zombies punching a mecha can in fact kill it.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:


The entire problem with 8th edition right now is that the things with degrading profiles are too OP for their points value and just their general use on the table becomes cancerous, especially Knights. You really want Imperial Knights, among the most broken things on the table right now, to not lose ballistic skill as they become damaged? That seems like a great way to make the game even more broken and inflate the number of people taking knights as allies to games.

 Yarium wrote:

HoundsofDemos wrote:
I do miss that low strength weapons not being able to damage high toughness/AV model. A las gun shouldn't be able to hurt a landraider.

I get this sentiment, but I prefer things that need to roll to wound or not, even if it's a low chance. What's more fun? Rolling 20 dice and hoping for that low chance of wounding, or rolling nothing because nothing happens? While the second one may be "more accurate", the first is "more fun", because it lets the players do something, even if that something isn't very useful. It makes people be active in the game. I love the Murder Sword, but it's very anti-climactic when you get it to the targeted character, as it's straight hits=mortal wounds. That's crazy, since Chaos Lord that's likely wielding this is hitting on 2+ rerollable anyways. It's still okay, because it's still possible to flub, but it's not nearly as interesting or fun as attacking with a Power Fist. The Power Fist is much worse most of the time, but it's also more fun most of the time too.

As mentioned before, while rolling 100 lasguns once is fun, having to roll 100 lasguns multiple times over multiple shooting phases just hoping for 3 or 5 sixes is just a waste of time that gums up the game's speed without adding much "fun" at all to the game. While also feeling fairly silly that a bunch of lost strength weapons can somehow injure something with over twice the toughness. Plus with split fire it's not like you even need to target guns that won't wound on the things the lascannon team in your squad is shooting at.

IK's may be broken but not every vehicle, they'll always be broken units. but you pay gak loads for vehicles, they are supposed to hit hard. You collect DA's, you have plenty of stuff that can counter them, get a falchion and then you'll be laughing at IK's power.

lolwut? Dark Angels are a Space Marine army. Like all Space Marine armies they are complete pieces of gak that get outshot by guardsmen and annihilated by Imperial Knights. Bringing a Falchion to fight Knights is a terrible idea. Your Falchion might kill 1 Knight, and that's if you only get the initiative. What happens more often is that the Imperial Knights/guard battery puts out so many shots that the Falchion is outright erased and all you have left to shoot at the knights is devastators/ravenwing/hellblasters. Which are decent but aren't going to stand up to knights. That and it involves buying an excessively overpriced Falchion. If prices were cheaper I might buy a Knight Atrapos as an ally, but at that point you're just fighting fire with fire.

But if you want things to counter knights, Space Marines are probably the worst army you could pick unless those marines are in fact Death Guard.

 Wyzilla wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:


The entire problem with 8th edition right now is that the things with degrading profiles are too OP for their points value and just their general use on the table becomes cancerous, especially Knights. You really want Imperial Knights, among the most broken things on the table right now, to not lose ballistic skill as they become damaged? That seems like a great way to make the game even more broken and inflate the number of people taking knights as allies to games.

Nah, let's have vehicles be able to be killed in a single shot like the previous 5 editions of the game. That'll make them better. /s

Depends on the vehicle. The big ones should be less durable than they currently are though as I mentioned in prior threads - infantry needs more firepower to realistically counter heavy armor while in turn not being terribly effective against infantry to prevent blobs of infantry becoming OP in turn. But we definitely don't want Knights stomping around with their base profile never being effected until they die.

 Stux wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
No, it doesn't happen often - hardly ever. But if it is mathematically possible (after all it only takes what 1500 lasgun shots to kill a Land Raider?) the game is garbage. Personally people can continue to move to Bolt Action. If you're that angsty about game rules...good riddance.

I'm sorry, but that's a very silly argument.

I mean, I can't tell you what you can or can't find fun of course. But this basically never happens. Of all the things to be annoyed about in 40k, this would be bottom of the list.

In fact, I see it as a feature. No matter what your opponent brings, victory is never truly impossible.

Actually it's happened a fair bit to me and it is pretty damn dumb and jarring for immersion. I recently charged so many poxwalkers (using tabletop simulator because there's no way I could get that many poxwalkers in reality) I killed an Imperial Knight in two rounds of melee with 3 squads of poxwalkers that had literally eaten the conscript blobs that were supposed to screen enemy fire (resulting in over 100 poxwalkers storming across the table in a glorious horde). It doesn't make a lick of sense that a bunch of zombies punching a mecha can in fact kill it.

Vehicles are supposed to be over-powered and infantry are supposed to have a problem taking them down. Just fight vehicle with vehicle, you are acting like your army has none.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:


The entire problem with 8th edition right now is that the things with degrading profiles are too OP for their points value and just their general use on the table becomes cancerous, especially Knights. You really want Imperial Knights, among the most broken things on the table right now, to not lose ballistic skill as they become damaged? That seems like a great way to make the game even more broken and inflate the number of people taking knights as allies to games.

Nah, let's have vehicles be able to be killed in a single shot like the previous 5 editions of the game. That'll make them better. /s

Depends on the vehicle. The big ones should be less durable than they currently are though as I mentioned in prior threads - infantry needs more firepower to realistically counter heavy armor while in turn not being terribly effective against infantry to prevent blobs of infantry becoming OP in turn. But we definitely don't want Knights stomping around with their base profile never being effected until they die.

 Stux wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
No, it doesn't happen often - hardly ever. But if it is mathematically possible (after all it only takes what 1500 lasgun shots to kill a Land Raider?) the game is garbage. Personally people can continue to move to Bolt Action. If you're that angsty about game rules...good riddance.

I'm sorry, but that's a very silly argument.

I mean, I can't tell you what you can or can't find fun of course. But this basically never happens. Of all the things to be annoyed about in 40k, this would be bottom of the list.

In fact, I see it as a feature. No matter what your opponent brings, victory is never truly impossible.

Actually it's happened a fair bit to me and it is pretty damn dumb and jarring for immersion. I recently charged so many poxwalkers (using tabletop simulator because there's no way I could get that many poxwalkers in reality) I killed an Imperial Knight in two rounds of melee with 3 squads of poxwalkers that had literally eaten the conscript blobs that were supposed to screen enemy fire (resulting in over 100 poxwalkers storming across the table in a glorious horde). It doesn't make a lick of sense that a bunch of zombies punching a mecha can in fact kill it.

Vehicles are supposed to be over-powered and infantry are supposed to have a problem taking them down. Just fight vehicle with vehicle, you are acting like your army has none.

Vehicles aren't OP because nothing is "OP" in warfare save maybe nuclear artillery. Everything is countered by everything and a single squad of space marine devastators or a couple squads of guardsmen packing lascannons should pose a very real, credible, and lethal threat to any vehicle in the game short of having void shields. Vehicles do not and are not supposed to counter infantry, vehicles provide fire support to infantry trying to kill other infantry. What should happen if you try to just rush a bunch of infantry in cover with tanks in 40k is that said tanks get blown up by dedicated AT weapons while the player scratches their head and wonders why their opponent thinks armor lacking proper support is a good idea.

And Space Marines don't have vehicles. The best vehicle space marines can get that isn't a relic or a lord of war is a predator FFS. Granted we don't have it as bad as Orks (have fun with that 5+ BS on everything) or Grey Knights, but Marine monocodex armies are hot garbage right now thanks to superheavies running around in mere 2000 and 1750 games.

 Wyzilla wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:


The entire problem with 8th edition right now is that the things with degrading profiles are too OP for their points value and just their general use on the table becomes cancerous, especially Knights. You really want Imperial Knights, among the most broken things on the table right now, to not lose ballistic skill as they become damaged? That seems like a great way to make the game even more broken and inflate the number of people taking knights as allies to games.

Nah, let's have vehicles be able to be killed in a single shot like the previous 5 editions of the game. That'll make them better. /s

Depends on the vehicle. The big ones should be less durable than they currently are though as I mentioned in prior threads - infantry needs more firepower to realistically counter heavy armor while in turn not being terribly effective against infantry to prevent blobs of infantry becoming OP in turn. But we definitely don't want Knights stomping around with their base profile never being effected until they die.

 Stux wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
No, it doesn't happen often - hardly ever. But if it is mathematically possible (after all it only takes what 1500 lasgun shots to kill a Land Raider?) the game is garbage. Personally people can continue to move to Bolt Action. If you're that angsty about game rules...good riddance.

I'm sorry, but that's a very silly argument.

I mean, I can't tell you what you can or can't find fun of course. But this basically never happens. Of all the things to be annoyed about in 40k, this would be bottom of the list.

In fact, I see it as a feature. No matter what your opponent brings, victory is never truly impossible.

Actually it's happened a fair bit to me and it is pretty damn dumb and jarring for immersion. I recently charged so many poxwalkers (using tabletop simulator because there's no way I could get that many poxwalkers in reality) I killed an Imperial Knight in two rounds of melee with 3 squads of poxwalkers that had literally eaten the conscript blobs that were supposed to screen enemy fire (resulting in over 100 poxwalkers storming across the table in a glorious horde). It doesn't make a lick of sense that a bunch of zombies punching a mecha can in fact kill it.

Vehicles are supposed to be over-powered and infantry are supposed to have a problem taking them down. Just fight vehicle with vehicle, you are acting like your army has none.

Vehicles aren't OP because nothing is "OP" in warfare save maybe nuclear artillery. Everything is countered by everything and a single squad of space marine devastators or a couple squads of guardsmen packing lascannons should pose a very real, credible, and lethal threat to any vehicle in the game short of having void shields. Vehicles do not and are not supposed to counter infantry, vehicles provide fire support to infantry trying to kill other infantry. What should happen if you try to just rush a bunch of infantry in cover with tanks in 40k is that said tanks get blown up by dedicated AT weapons while the player scratches their head and wonders why their opponent thinks armor lacking proper support is a good idea.

That doesn't even make sense. OP is relative saying that the only thing that is OP is a nuclear bomb is they 'most' OP thing.. A squad of lascannons can one-shot a land raider if they are very lucky. I never said they are supposed to counter infantry, but they actually are, even in real life you have tanks that counter infantry. The only problem there is that vehicles should be able to be locked in combat and you should be able to use grenades in CC and everyone should be able to use grenades like in the beginning of 7th. Infantry need changed, vehicles don't.

 Wyzilla wrote:

Actually it's happened a fair bit to me and it is pretty damn dumb and jarring for immersion. I recently charged so many poxwalkers (using tabletop simulator because there's no way I could get that many poxwalkers in reality) I killed an Imperial Knight in two rounds of melee with 3 squads of poxwalkers that had literally eaten the conscript blobs that were supposed to screen enemy fire (resulting in over 100 poxwalkers storming across the table in a glorious horde). It doesn't make a lick of sense that a bunch of zombies punching a mecha can in fact kill it.

Wait - you’re complaining about a game rule kicking in using an example that would never actually happen on the gameboard?

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:


The entire problem with 8th edition right now is that the things with degrading profiles are too OP for their points value and just their general use on the table becomes cancerous, especially Knights. You really want Imperial Knights, among the most broken things on the table right now, to not lose ballistic skill as they become damaged? That seems like a great way to make the game even more broken and inflate the number of people taking knights as allies to games.

Nah, let's have vehicles be able to be killed in a single shot like the previous 5 editions of the game. That'll make them better. /s

Depends on the vehicle. The big ones should be less durable than they currently are though as I mentioned in prior threads - infantry needs more firepower to realistically counter heavy armor while in turn not being terribly effective against infantry to prevent blobs of infantry becoming OP in turn. But we definitely don't want Knights stomping around with their base profile never being effected until they die.

 Stux wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
No, it doesn't happen often - hardly ever. But if it is mathematically possible (after all it only takes what 1500 lasgun shots to kill a Land Raider?) the game is garbage. Personally people can continue to move to Bolt Action. If you're that angsty about game rules...good riddance.

I'm sorry, but that's a very silly argument.

I mean, I can't tell you what you can or can't find fun of course. But this basically never happens. Of all the things to be annoyed about in 40k, this would be bottom of the list.

In fact, I see it as a feature. No matter what your opponent brings, victory is never truly impossible.

Actually it's happened a fair bit to me and it is pretty damn dumb and jarring for immersion. I recently charged so many poxwalkers (using tabletop simulator because there's no way I could get that many poxwalkers in reality) I killed an Imperial Knight in two rounds of melee with 3 squads of poxwalkers that had literally eaten the conscript blobs that were supposed to screen enemy fire (resulting in over 100 poxwalkers storming across the table in a glorious horde). It doesn't make a lick of sense that a bunch of zombies punching a mecha can in fact kill it.

Vehicles are supposed to be over-powered and infantry are supposed to have a problem taking them down. Just fight vehicle with vehicle, you are acting like your army has none.

Vehicles aren't OP because nothing is "OP" in warfare save maybe nuclear artillery. Everything is countered by everything and a single squad of space marine devastators or a couple squads of guardsmen packing lascannons should pose a very real, credible, and lethal threat to any vehicle in the game short of having void shields. Vehicles do not and are not supposed to counter infantry, vehicles provide fire support to infantry trying to kill other infantry. What should happen if you try to just rush a bunch of infantry in cover with tanks in 40k is that said tanks get blown up by dedicated AT weapons while the player scratches their head and wonders why their opponent thinks armor lacking proper support is a good idea.

That doesn't even make sense. OP is relative saying that the only thing that is OP is a nuclear bomb is they 'most' OP thing.. A squad of lascannons can one-shot a land raider if they are very lucky. I never said they are supposed to counter infantry, but they actually are, even in real life you have tanks that counter infantry. The only problem there is that vehicles should be able to be locked in combat and you should be able to use grenades in CC and everyone should be able to use grenades like in the beginning of 7th. Infantry need changed, vehicles don't.

...and you also have infantry that counter tanks, which is why tanks were seldom unaccompanied by infantry of their own to cover any blind spots. Against small arms fire tanks were a problem, but most infantry units had some sort of anti-tank weapon ever since WW2. Even a bottle of petrol was enough to seriously damage a tank. I thought grenades still had a melee stat? EDIT : Huh, apparently not. Well that's dumb.

Of course, now that vision arcs are gone that covering blind-spots aspect is irrelevant. I liked that mechanic. I guess you could still use infantry to stop vehicles from getting charged or to stop meltas or whatever from getting in range.

 Wyzilla wrote:
Vehicles do not and are not supposed to counter infantry, vehicles provide fire support to infantry trying to kill other infantry.

How do you "provide fire support" without just killing the enemy infantry?

What should happen if you try to just rush a bunch of infantry in cover with tanks in 40k is that said tanks get blown up by dedicated AT weapons while the player scratches their head and wonders why their opponent thinks armor lacking proper support is a good idea.

Too bad that isn't possible in a game with effectively no LOS/cover mechanic, no hidden units that require scouting by screening forces, etc. 40k doesn't differentiate between unit types enough for any of this to matter, there simply isn't any concept of "support". All that matters is stacking up the most efficient dice regardless of platform and exchanging casualties until someone wins.

 Stormonu wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:

Actually it's happened a fair bit to me and it is pretty damn dumb and jarring for immersion. I recently charged so many poxwalkers (using tabletop simulator because there's no way I could get that many poxwalkers in reality) I killed an Imperial Knight in two rounds of melee with 3 squads of poxwalkers that had literally eaten the conscript blobs that were supposed to screen enemy fire (resulting in over 100 poxwalkers storming across the table in a glorious horde). It doesn't make a lick of sense that a bunch of zombies punching a mecha can in fact kill it.

Wait - you’re complaining about a game rule kicking in using an example that would never actually happen on the gameboard?

Only as far as I'd be willing to pay for, although it can happen using different units which would be less expensive to buy up. But just using poxwalkers in general would probably demand I buy some cheap zombie miniatures or just coins to represent the extra bodies if I ever make a Death Guard army. It's crazy how bloated poxwalker squads can become when they get to devour a bunch of guardsmen after advancing through cover (I had one squad pass the 50 mark as it reached one end of a gunline and kept munching). But any infantry that doesn't have excessively superhuman strength shouldn't be able to scratch a Leman Russ in melee. S5 at least.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:
Vehicles do not and are not supposed to counter infantry, vehicles provide fire support to infantry trying to kill other infantry.

How do you "provide fire support" without just killing the enemy infantry?

Suppressing the enemy unit (bring back pie plates and shaken dammit) or killing them, but not in a manner efficient enough that the driver would feel safe getting close without eating an armor-piercing rocket.

Too bad that isn't possible in a game with effectively no LOS/cover mechanic, no hidden units that require scouting by screening forces, etc. 40k doesn't differentiate between unit types enough for any of this to matter, there simply isn't any concept of "support". All that matters is stacking up the most efficient dice regardless of platform and exchanging casualties until someone wins.

Which is why 40k as it is right now is in a pretty gakky state, with GW once again fixing some issues only for even more to suddenly breakdown. Feels like an endless song and dance at this point.

 Elbows wrote:
No, it doesn't happen often - hardly ever. But if it is mathematically possible (after all it only takes what 1500 lasgun shots to kill a Land Raider?) the game is garbage. Personally people can continue to move to Bolt Action. If you're that angsty about game rules...good riddance.

It was also mathematically possible for the OP to complain about the new Necron Canoptek construct because of the max potential of its gun.

We use averages for a reason.

I like the damage tables, like others have mentioned it makes your shots at vehicles actually mean something as they degrade and helps distinguish them from infantry even though they share the same stat line.

Problem with BS on degradation is a mechanics issue, not a vehicle one. Make all natural 6's a hit (just like all natural 6's are wounds) and it will go a long way IMO

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
No, it doesn't happen often - hardly ever. But if it is mathematically possible (after all it only takes what 1500 lasgun shots to kill a Land Raider?) the game is garbage. Personally people can continue to move to Bolt Action. If you're that angsty about game rules...good riddance.

It was also mathematically possible for the OP to complain about the new Necron Canoptek construct because of the max potential of its gun.

We use averages for a reason.

So do you calculate the averages for every weapon in the game. REMOVED BY BROOKM - RULE #1 IS NOT OPTIONAL If you aren't going to factor in BS ect. then using the total is completely valid, because if its 26 possible wounds vs 26 possible wounds then all you have to do is compare the difference in BS, st and ap, which is a hell of a lot simpler and quicker than calculating the averages. It means you can just scan the weapon profiles.

NurglesR0T wrote:I like the damage tables, like others have mentioned it makes your shots at vehicles actually mean something as they degrade and helps distinguish them from infantry even though they share the same stat line.

Problem with BS on degradation is a mechanics issue, not a vehicle one. Make all natural 6's a hit (just like all natural 6's are wounds) and it will go a long way IMO

Natural 6s don't always wound.

Admittedly, the only -1 to wound I know of is on Harlequin Infantry, meaning you need a S1 weapon to fail to wound them every time. But hey.

Delvarus Centurion wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
No, it doesn't happen often - hardly ever. But if it is mathematically possible (after all it only takes what 1500 lasgun shots to kill a Land Raider?) the game is garbage. Personally people can continue to move to Bolt Action. If you're that angsty about game rules...good riddance.

It was also mathematically possible for the OP to complain about the new Necron Canoptek construct because of the max potential of its gun.

We use averages for a reason.

So do you calculate the averages for every weapon in the game. REMOVED BY BROOKM - RULE #1 IS NOT OPTIONAL If you aren't going to factor in BS ect. then using the total is completely valid, because if its 26 possible wounds vs 26 possible wounds then all you have to do is compare the difference in BS, st and ap, which is a hell of a lot simpler and quicker than calculating the averages. It means you can just scan the weapon profiles.

NurglesR0T wrote:I like the damage tables, like others have mentioned it makes your shots at vehicles actually mean something as they degrade and helps distinguish them from infantry even though they share the same stat line.

Problem with BS on degradation is a mechanics issue, not a vehicle one. Make all natural 6's a hit (just like all natural 6's are wounds) and it will go a long way IMO

Averages aren't hard to calculate, you know.

 JNAProductions wrote:

NurglesR0T wrote:I like the damage tables, like others have mentioned it makes your shots at vehicles actually mean something as they degrade and helps distinguish them from infantry even though they share the same stat line.

Problem with BS on degradation is a mechanics issue, not a vehicle one. Make all natural 6's a hit (just like all natural 6's are wounds) and it will go a long way IMO

Natural 6s don't always wound.

Admittedly, the only -1 to wound I know of is on Harlequin Infantry, meaning you need a S1 weapon to fail to wound them every time. But hey.

Ok... so outside of one unit that has an exception to the rule, a 6 will almost always wound

 NurglesR0T wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

NurglesR0T wrote:I like the damage tables, like others have mentioned it makes your shots at vehicles actually mean something as they degrade and helps distinguish them from infantry even though they share the same stat line.

Problem with BS on degradation is a mechanics issue, not a vehicle one. Make all natural 6's a hit (just like all natural 6's are wounds) and it will go a long way IMO

Natural 6s don't always wound.

Admittedly, the only -1 to wound I know of is on Harlequin Infantry, meaning you need a S1 weapon to fail to wound them every time. But hey.

Ok... so outside of one unit that has an exception to the rule, a 6 will almost always wound

Are there even any S1 weapons? Because that's what you need to fail on a 6.

None that I'm aware of natively.

Would be nice to see in the next FAQ a simple line that a 1 is always a fail, and a 6 is always a pass

 Xenomancers wrote:
I think degrading profile should not affect BS.

I don't necessarily agree, but I do think it should be rethought a little. Something built for pure resilience shouldn't get impacted as harder by taking damage. Something like a Tyranid Exocrine however, that is basically just a living Cannon? makes perfect sense that the more damage it takes the worse it performs its role.

 JNAProductions wrote:

NurglesR0T wrote:I like the damage tables, like others have mentioned it makes your shots at vehicles actually mean something as they degrade and helps distinguish them from infantry even though they share the same stat line.

Problem with BS on degradation is a mechanics issue, not a vehicle one. Make all natural 6's a hit (just like all natural 6's are wounds) and it will go a long way IMO

Natural 6s don't always wound.

Admittedly, the only -1 to wound I know of is on Harlequin Infantry, meaning you need a S1 weapon to fail to wound them every time. But hey.

Delvarus Centurion wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
No, it doesn't happen often - hardly ever. But if it is mathematically possible (after all it only takes what 1500 lasgun shots to kill a Land Raider?) the game is garbage. Personally people can continue to move to Bolt Action. If you're that angsty about game rules...good riddance.

It was also mathematically possible for the OP to complain about the new Necron Canoptek construct because of the max potential of its gun.

We use averages for a reason.

So do you calculate the averages for every weapon in the game. REMOVED BY BROOKM - RULE #1 IS NOT OPTIONAL If you aren't going to factor in BS ect. then using the total is completely valid, because if its 26 possible wounds vs 26 possible wounds then all you have to do is compare the difference in BS, st and ap, which is a hell of a lot simpler and quicker than calculating the averages. It means you can just scan the weapon profiles.

NurglesR0T wrote:I like the damage tables, like others have mentioned it makes your shots at vehicles actually mean something as they degrade and helps distinguish them from infantry even though they share the same stat line.

Problem with BS on degradation is a mechanics issue, not a vehicle one. Make all natural 6's a hit (just like all natural 6's are wounds) and it will go a long way IMO

Averages aren't hard to calculate, you know.

Nerf Termagants, 6 of them will kill a Knight gallant every single turn, ridiculously OP





or how bout we stop using such an illogical measure. Anyone valueing a unit off potential max damage is handicapping themselves immensely as it's completely different from reality. This is like, definitively low level understanding, if you want to do it nobody can stop you, but stop using the stats in conversation and argument as if it means anything

 SHUPPET wrote:
Nerf Termagants, 6 of them will kill a Knight gallant every single turn, ridiculously OP





or how bout we stop using such an illogical measure. Anyone valueing a unit off potential max damage is handicapping themselves immensely as it's completely different from reality. This is like, definitively low level understanding, if you want to do it nobody can stop you, but stop using the stats in conversation and argument as if it means anything

I never said I was using statistics first of all and stop following me around, its already been said on the other thread.

Stop following you around? Lmao stop starting the same silly argument in multiple threads, I clicked on this thread to weigh in about vehicle damage as you'll see my first post in here was about, it's not my fault that you've turned it into another debate about how max potential damage is a valid indicator of competitive strength. Nobody is following you anywhere lol in fact if I'd had seen it was you who made this thread I probably wouldn't have clicked it, because really I should already know how it was going to go.

 SHUPPET wrote:
Stop following you around? Lmao stop starting the same silly argument in multiple threads, I clicked on this thread to weigh in about vehicle damage as you'll see my first post in here was about, it's not my fault that you've turned it into another debate about how max potential damage is a valid indicator of competitive strength. Nobody is following you anywhere lol in fact if I'd had seen it was you who made this thread I probably wouldn't have clicked it, because really I should already know how it was going to go.

I mean, if we're looking at max damage, Mortarion can do, in theory...

8 attacks turns into 24 swings
24 swings turns into 96 hits
Each hit does 4 damage plus a mortal wound

480 damage to a single Imperium model in a turn.

So, you know. Beat that.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
Stop following you around? Lmao stop starting the same silly argument in multiple threads, I clicked on this thread to weigh in about vehicle damage as you'll see my first post in here was about, it's not my fault that you've turned it into another debate about how max potential damage is a valid indicator of competitive strength. Nobody is following you anywhere lol in fact if I'd had seen it was you who made this thread I probably wouldn't have clicked it, because really I should already know how it was going to go.

I mean, if we're looking at max damage, Mortarion can do, in theory...

8 attacks turns into 24 swings
24 swings turns into 96 hits
Each hit does 4 damage plus a mortal wound

480 damage to a single Imperium model in a turn.

So, you know. Beat that.

Well you know a single SM tac squad only cost 130 points and can do 34 wounds in one turn one shooting him

 mew28 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
Stop following you around? Lmao stop starting the same silly argument in multiple threads, I clicked on this thread to weigh in about vehicle damage as you'll see my first post in here was about, it's not my fault that you've turned it into another debate about how max potential damage is a valid indicator of competitive strength. Nobody is following you anywhere lol in fact if I'd had seen it was you who made this thread I probably wouldn't have clicked it, because really I should already know how it was going to go.

I mean, if we're looking at max damage, Mortarion can do, in theory...

8 attacks turns into 24 swings
24 swings turns into 96 hits
Each hit does 4 damage plus a mortal wound

480 damage to a single Imperium model in a turn.

So, you know. Beat that.

Well you know a single SM tac squad only cost 130 points and can do 34 wounds in one turn one shooting him

Incoming Tac squad nerf - you heard it first here folks.

 Elbows wrote:
No, it doesn't happen often - hardly ever. But if it is mathematically possible (after all it only takes what 1500 lasgun shots to kill a Land Raider?) the game is garbage. Personally people can continue to move to Bolt Action. If you're that angsty about game rules...good riddance.

Well i have killed wraithkn:ght with consciipt overwatch which i# silly and illogical breaking suspension of disbelief big time

Flashlight to the eyes? Those things topple right over.

Since 8th launched I'm still yet to see any small arms kill a land raider or something comparatively sized. A severely wounded vehicle with one wound remaining and happens to get taken out with a lucky lasgun is not the same

It's still illogical and shouldn't happen and has huge effect to the game.

Flashlight to eye does not kill something as big and armoured as wraithknight. Blind for a second maybe but kill? Yeah right.

tneva82 wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
No, it doesn't happen often - hardly ever. But if it is mathematically possible (after all it only takes what 1500 lasgun shots to kill a Land Raider?) the game is garbage. Personally people can continue to move to Bolt Action. If you're that angsty about game rules...good riddance.

Well i have killed wraithkn:ght with consciipt overwatch which i# silly and illogical breaking suspension of disbelief big time

Use your imagination people!

First of all, 40k is an heroic game. Not a simulation. These possibilities create awesome stories.

Second, it's entirely possible that a fuel line, ammunition store, or something like that had become exposed due to the damage the vehicle suffered earlier. One, albeit a lucky one, shot from a small arm could very well ignite causing a chain reaction that tears the vehicle apart.

 Stux wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
No, it doesn't happen often - hardly ever. But if it is mathematically possible (after all it only takes what 1500 lasgun shots to kill a Land Raider?) the game is garbage. Personally people can continue to move to Bolt Action. If you're that angsty about game rules...good riddance.

Well i have killed wraithkn:ght with consciipt overwatch which i# silly and illogical breaking suspension of disbelief big time

Use your imagination people!

First of all, 40k is an heroic game. Not a simulation. These possibilities create awesome stories.

Second, it's entirely possible that a fuel line, ammunition store, or something like that had become exposed due to the damage the vehicle suffered earlier. One, albeit a lucky one, shot from a small arm could very well ignite causing a chain reaction that tears the vehicle apart.

Except Eldar vehicles don't really have those, and Wraithbone is stronger than Adamantium. And secondly, no. 40k is a skirmish game involving a couple infantry units and a tank or two that has ballooned out beyond its means and since become a crippled system incapable of supporting the scale that GW pushes upon it. Especially when the 40k meta isn't "heroic", unless you consider it heroic for incredibly overpowered things to stomp on fodder repeatedly with little chance of defeat to be "heroic".

 Wyzilla wrote:

 Stux wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
No, it doesn't happen often - hardly ever. But if it is mathematically possible (after all it only takes what 1500 lasgun shots to kill a Land Raider?) the game is garbage. Personally people can continue to move to Bolt Action. If you're that angsty about game rules...good riddance.

Well i have killed wraithkn:ght with consciipt overwatch which i# silly and illogical breaking suspension of disbelief big time

Use your imagination people!

First of all, 40k is an heroic game. Not a simulation. These possibilities create awesome stories.

Second, it's entirely possible that a fuel line, ammunition store, or something like that had become exposed due to the damage the vehicle suffered earlier. One, albeit a lucky one, shot from a small arm could very well ignite causing a chain reaction that tears the vehicle apart.

Except Eldar vehicles don't really have those, and Wraithbone is stronger than Adamantium. And secondly, no. 40k is a skirmish game involving a couple infantry units and a tank or two that has ballooned out beyond its means and since become a crippled system incapable of supporting the scale that GW pushes upon it. Especially when the 40k meta isn't "heroic", unless you consider it heroic for incredibly overpowered things to stomp on fodder repeatedly with little chance of defeat to be "heroic".

I'm saying it's a feature, not a bug, that a normal guy has a CHANCE of taking down a big thing. Because it lends a cinematic edge to those rolls. So many people have stories about the time their Company Commander downed Abaddon against all odds, game memories that last forever. This is just like that.

Both from a hyper-real narrative perspective, and from a game balance perspective, it's a really good thing that this sort of thing is possible.

tneva82 wrote:
It's still illogical and shouldn't happen and has huge effect to the game.

Flashlight to eye does not kill something as big and armoured as wraithknight. Blind for a second maybe but kill? Yeah right.

Arguing about logic and illogical events in the 40k setting is a moot point isn't it?

 NurglesR0T wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
It's still illogical and shouldn't happen and has huge effect to the game.

Flashlight to eye does not kill something as big and armoured as wraithknight. Blind for a second maybe but kill? Yeah right.

Arguing about logic and illogical events in the 40k setting is a moot point isn't it?

Right? I see it like going to see an action movie and complaining about the explosions being unrealistic.

If anything for the big models I'd make it worse by being more graduated. So akin to AoS there would be 5-6 bands rather than 3. A model with a few wounds left should be weakened - an infantry squad would be mostly dead.

Although some rebalancing is necessary as certain units start bad and are worthless by band two.

Tyel wrote:
If anything for the big models I'd make it worse by being more graduated. So akin to AoS there would be 5-6 bands rather than 3. A model with a few wounds left should be weakened - an infantry squad would be mostly dead.

Although some rebalancing is necessary as certain units start bad and are worthless by band two.

Yes, as said above there are some Tyranid beasties that degrade S, A, and WS. Which is just insane!

I feel like either just one stat should degrade, or 2 degrade and 1 goes up. You could have WS and S go down, but A go up for instance, to represent the monster becoming frenzied as it gets hurt.

 Stux wrote:


I feel like either just one stat should degrade, or 2 degrade and 1 goes up. You could have WS and S go down, but A go up for instance, to represent the monster becoming frenzied as it gets hurt.

You mean like the Khorne Lord Of Skulls does?

Crispy78 wrote:

 Stux wrote:


I feel like either just one stat should degrade, or 2 degrade and 1 goes up. You could have WS and S go down, but A go up for instance, to represent the monster becoming frenzied as it gets hurt.

You mean like the Khorne Lord Of Skulls does?

Yeah! Basically. More of that please

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

 ServiceGames wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
This isn't that big of an issue as all vehicles etc. are weakened as they are damaged, but I do see the point of it in 8th. Before when the game was more complicated, it was fine as its more realistic, but there isn't really a need for realism in 8th as they got rid of a lot of realist rules. My main gripe is just the annoyance of having to remember how many wounds its taken and corresponding to the codex. I'd prefer it just be simplify and get rid of the damage as it isn't really going to change the dynamic of the game as everyone will be rid of the rule. Plus its not that realistic, we don't have infantry damage, they can for instance lose an arm and become half as effective. Plus the more damage they take the less effective they are and the longer the game needs to be. I think 8th was the perfect edition to just get rid of the idea. How does everyone else fell about vehicle etc. damage?

Warhammer 40K Wound Trackers

SG

That's not the point I was making.

My main gripe is just the annoyance of having to remember how many wounds its taken and corresponding to the codex.

It really does seem to be the point you were making

SG

 Stux wrote:

Crispy78 wrote:

 Stux wrote:


I feel like either just one stat should degrade, or 2 degrade and 1 goes up. You could have WS and S go down, but A go up for instance, to represent the monster becoming frenzied as it gets hurt.

You mean like the Khorne Lord Of Skulls does?

Yeah! Basically. More of that please

There's some of that in the Forge World indexes. Many Chaos Hellforged vehicles, for an example, tend to get higher WS the worse for wear they are, which synergizes nicely with their often -3 AP attacks and the ability to regain wounds by eating souls.

To answer the OP:

No.

It's one of the better changes of 8th edition.

 Galef wrote:

 deviantduck wrote:
Or maybe even just a 100%/50% scale for smaller vehicles?

I actually like this idea. Right now anything with 10+ wounds has a 3 level degrading scale, but maybe things with 10-15 wounds should only have 2 levels

-

Yeah - that is a great idea.

The anything can hurt anything on a six is one of many things that is skewing the game towards super big stompy thing/smash captains and the rest being numerous chaff. Against most vehicles a marine has the same chance as hurting it as a guardsman or a grot. That's a problem and something that doesn't make sense. Finally the nonsense on o, it's a one in a million shot. I could spend days firing a M4 at an Abrams and guess what, it will not do any meaningful damage because certain things simply can't damage other things. I can punch a concrete wall all day and the only thing I'm going to get for my trouble is a broken hand.

HoundsofDemos wrote:
The anything can hurt anything on a six is one of many things that is skewing the game towards super big stompy thing/smash captains and the rest being numerous chaff. Against most vehicles a marine has the same chance as hurting it as a guardsman or a grot. That's a problem and something that doesn't make sense. Finally the nonsense on o, it's a one in a million shot. I could spend days firing a M4 at an Abrams and guess what, it will not do any meaningful damage because certain things simply can't damage other things. I can punch a concrete wall all day and the only thing I'm going to get for my trouble is a broken hand.

Yeah, but this isn't a simulation. It's a universe where swords are a viable option on a pitched battlefield against people armed with automatic weapons. It's cinematic.

HoundsofDemos wrote:
The anything can hurt anything on a six is one of many things that is skewing the game towards super big stompy thing/smash captains and the rest being numerous chaff. Against most vehicles a marine has the same chance as hurting it as a guardsman or a grot. That's a problem and something that doesn't make sense. Finally the nonsense on o, it's a one in a million shot. I could spend days firing a M4 at an Abrams and guess what, it will not do any meaningful damage because certain things simply can't damage other things. I can punch a concrete wall all day and the only thing I'm going to get for my trouble is a broken hand.

Unless that concrete was partly cracked of course.

A game can have have elements of simulation while remaining cinematic. The cinematic aspect has been heavily diluted in 8th, IMO.

The current system could use some tweaking, and there are a lot of execution issues with specific things (the resiliency gap between most MBT's and tin-can transports is startlingly small), but it's probably the best vehicle system we have ever had.

The degredation is a good mechanic, it represents damage without having to be specific about it (like losing individual weapons or being stunned in previous editions) and rewards doing something to these things even if they don't die outright.

I agree that degradation suits 40k well.

I remember having dice piled on my tanks to remember which effects it was suffering from.

I've got a 2 and a 4 and a 5... So I can't move this turn... I can't move ever... and which weapon was destroyed again?

Instead, piece of paper, how many wounds it has left. Done. To me, this rule is as close to elegant as GW gets.

 Wyzilla wrote:
Only as far as I'd be willing to pay for, although it can happen using different units which would be less expensive to buy up. But just using poxwalkers in general would probably demand I buy some cheap zombie miniatures or just coins to represent the extra bodies if I ever make a Death Guard army. It's crazy how bloated poxwalker squads can become when they get to devour a bunch of guardsmen after advancing through cover (I had one squad pass the 50 mark as it reached one end of a gunline and kept munching). But any infantry that doesn't have excessively superhuman strength shouldn't be able to scratch a Leman Russ in melee. S5 at least.

Complaining about a 50+ squad of poxwalkers taking anything down is never a good argument. Yes they can go above starting strength but they need reserve points to do so. No one is going to keep 180+ reserve points just in case their 20 man squad of poxwalkers happens to take out 30+ enemy infantry models while also not losing any models itself. This of course assumes match play rules. But if you're playing narrative or open play who cares what a blob of 50+ poxwalkers can do? That's kind of the whole point of narrative and open play games.

 IronBrand wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:
Only as far as I'd be willing to pay for, although it can happen using different units which would be less expensive to buy up. But just using poxwalkers in general would probably demand I buy some cheap zombie miniatures or just coins to represent the extra bodies if I ever make a Death Guard army. It's crazy how bloated poxwalker squads can become when they get to devour a bunch of guardsmen after advancing through cover (I had one squad pass the 50 mark as it reached one end of a gunline and kept munching). But any infantry that doesn't have excessively superhuman strength shouldn't be able to scratch a Leman Russ in melee. S5 at least.

Complaining about a 50+ squad of poxwalkers taking anything down is never a good argument. Yes they can go above starting strength but they need reserve points to do so. No one is going to keep 180+ reserve points just in case their 20 man squad of poxwalkers happens to take out 30+ enemy infantry models while also not losing any models itself. This of course assumes match play rules. But if you're playing narrative or open play who cares what a blob of 50+ poxwalkers can do? That's kind of the whole point of narrative and open play games.

Oh yeah, because it is totally unheard of that tanks were taken out by soldiers managing to climb on the tank.

 IronBrand wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:
Only as far as I'd be willing to pay for, although it can happen using different units which would be less expensive to buy up. But just using poxwalkers in general would probably demand I buy some cheap zombie miniatures or just coins to represent the extra bodies if I ever make a Death Guard army. It's crazy how bloated poxwalker squads can become when they get to devour a bunch of guardsmen after advancing through cover (I had one squad pass the 50 mark as it reached one end of a gunline and kept munching). But any infantry that doesn't have excessively superhuman strength shouldn't be able to scratch a Leman Russ in melee. S5 at least.

Complaining about a 50+ squad of poxwalkers taking anything down is never a good argument. Yes they can go above starting strength but they need reserve points to do so. No one is going to keep 180+ reserve points just in case their 20 man squad of poxwalkers happens to take out 30+ enemy infantry models while also not losing any models itself. This of course assumes match play rules. But if you're playing narrative or open play who cares what a blob of 50+ poxwalkers can do? That's kind of the whole point of narrative and open play games.

Because the idea that a bunch of infantry can kill a hab-sized mech by punching it is absurd and flatly shouldn't be possible regardless of the amount of S3 attacks you throw at one. At most somebody with a heavy stubber might "damage" a tank like a Leman Russ or Land Raider by detracking it when firing at it, but beyond that it's equally absurd for such weapons to damage a vehicle. Imbalance and stupidity on any level of play is unacceptable, and GW having to split up the rules is just indicative of their inability to properly balance anything anyway. And if anything they should bring back rules allowing vehicles or mechs to just crush light infantry in their way.

Frag grenade in an exhaust port? Frag grenade in a track? Frag grenade in a cannon? Frag grenade in a vision port? Crowbar pries open a hatch, and drop a frag grenade inside? Open a fuel port and drop a frag grenade inside? Wedge a frag grenade between a turret and the hull?

Attacks don’t necessarily represent a soldier punching armour. Sometimes it represents non-morons figuring out a way to damage a vehicle at close range using materials at hand. Overcharge a plasma pistol and use it like a melta bomb.

Free your mind!

 greatbigtree wrote:
Frag grenade in an exhaust port? Frag grenade in a track? Frag grenade in a cannon? Frag grenade in a vision port? Crowbar pries open a hatch, and drop a frag grenade inside? Open a fuel port and drop a frag grenade inside? Wedge a frag grenade between a turret and the hull?

Attacks don’t necessarily represent a soldier punching armour. Sometimes it represents non-morons figuring out a way to damage a vehicle at close range using materials at hand. Overcharge a plasma pistol and use it like a melta bomb.

Free your mind!

People forget that, theoretically, a squad of even just Tactical Marines had a mathematical chance to hit a AV10 vehicle rear and actually kill it without even needing grenades, thanks to how terrible vehicle rules have been overall.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 greatbigtree wrote:
Frag grenade in an exhaust port? Frag grenade in a track? Frag grenade in a cannon? Frag grenade in a vision port? Crowbar pries open a hatch, and drop a frag grenade inside? Open a fuel port and drop a frag grenade inside? Wedge a frag grenade between a turret and the hull?

Attacks don’t necessarily represent a soldier punching armour. Sometimes it represents non-morons figuring out a way to damage a vehicle at close range using materials at hand. Overcharge a plasma pistol and use it like a melta bomb.

Free your mind!

People forget that, theoretically, a squad of even just Tactical Marines had a mathematical chance to hit a AV10 vehicle rear and actually kill it without even needing grenades, thanks to how terrible vehicle rules have been overall.

It wasn't even that difficult. Ten models with bolters rapid firing had a reasonable chance of killing a vehicle from behind in some editions but ten lasguns had zero chance because that makes sense.

Why do Marines hammering on the back of a tank “make sense” but Guardsmen don’t?

Sluggas are large caliber solid shot weapons. Why does that make sense? Tyranid devourers fire Emperor knows what... bees? They could damage AV 10.

This is very specifically a “lasgun” issue. Guardsmen went from being virtual wound makers to now being worth something on the battlefield. They still don’t do much.

honestly I think it just comes down to the fact the guardsmen have been the whipping boys of all the other races for so long that people get upset when they can actually do something. You know when you think about it, it takes 72 guards men at long range unbuffed to do a single wound to a landraider. Even the humble Rhino requires 36 guardsmen shooting at it. Sure button in double tap range it takes only 18 guards man to take a single wound off a Land Raider. But that's still over a hundred points of dedicated shooting for one wound. Hardly the apocalypse.

on topic by very much prefer this vehicle damage system then the old one. I think it's important to have it because as you kill members of a squad there power diminishes and this is probably one of the best ways to represent that on a single model.

Des702 wrote:
honestly I think it just comes down to the fact the guardsmen have been the whipping boys of all the other races for so long that people get upset when they can actually do something. You know when you think about it, it takes 72 guards men at long range unbuffed to do a single wound to a landraider. Even the humble Rhino requires 36 guardsmen shooting at it. Sure button in double tap range it takes only 18 guards man to take a single wound off a Land Raider. But that's still over a hundred points of dedicated shooting for one wound. Hardly the apocalypse.

Guardsmen are not what makes IG top tier.. they are just the cheap bodies for CP (which in itself is a huge bonus)

I think it's great IG have a decent codex. They've been mid tier for several editions now, but don't pretend they don't have an amazing codex this time around.

Not sure where people get the idea that armor realistically can't be harmed by basic infantrymen. Knocking a wound off here and there is fine for representing soft kill contributors like de-tracking, damaging comms equipment, knocking out optics, crew injuries through lucky vision slit shots, damage to air intakes, etc. There are lots of ways to mission-kill an MBT that never involve penetrating the hull, especially when they're not buttoned-up like so many vehicle models in 40K.

I've never seen a game where basic Guardsmen have focus fired a tank from full health to dead, so it's not like lasguns are reasonable substitutes for proper AT weapons now. They can theoretically kill a tank, in the same way that a WW2-era grunt could theoretically put a .30-06 through the cupola of a PzIV, kill the TC via ricochet, and have the rest of the crew bail out. In practice, it's an extraordinarily rare occurrence, but the threat is significant enough to be worth modeling.

If a player is wary about getting their tanks close to basic infantry, even though it's statistically unlikely that they'll be appreciably harmed, then I'd say the mechanics have done a good job of reflecting reality.

Anyways, how on earth would having vehicles remain fully functional until they lose their last wound, at which point they suddenly explode, either be more realistic or improve the game? Degrading BS and speed are a simple and reasonably effective way to model degrading combat performance as a vehicle takes damage.

 greatbigtree wrote:
Frag grenade in an exhaust port? Frag grenade in a track? Frag grenade in a cannon? Frag grenade in a vision port? Crowbar pries open a hatch, and drop a frag grenade inside? Open a fuel port and drop a frag grenade inside? Wedge a frag grenade between a turret and the hull?

Attacks don’t necessarily represent a soldier punching armour. Sometimes it represents non-morons figuring out a way to damage a vehicle at close range using materials at hand. Overcharge a plasma pistol and use it like a melta bomb.

Free your mind!

And none of those are going to do anything to the tank because it's a frag grenade, a fragmentary device with minimal ability to penetrate armor and will cause superficial damage to a tank, not cause it to catastrophically explode. Besides grenades already have rules, they're called krak grenades. Likewise pistols can be used in melee too so once more, already accounted for in the rules and there is no need to allow for guardsmen to somehow injure titans on 6's. And vehicles either need the ability once more to simply splatter some infantry by driving over them or have appropriate melee attacks to represent them simply driving right over infantry foolish enough to charge them with bayonets.

I've never seen a game where basic Guardsmen have focus fired a tank from full health to dead, so it's not like lasguns are reasonable substitutes for proper AT weapons now. They can theoretically kill a tank, in the same way that a WW2-era grunt could theoretically put a .30-06 through the cupola of a PzIV, kill the TC via ricochet, and have the rest of the crew bail out. In practice, it's an extraordinarily rare occurrence, but the threat is significant enough to be worth modeling.

It happened - reading book on snipers and in some desperation the women were trying this - most failed and some killed doing so but now and again it worked. They fired at the driving slits. You don't need to destroy a tank to make it ineffective

In early 2017, an ISIS drone video shows an attack on an unsuspecting Iraqi M1, impacting the top of the tank and killing the exposed tank commander who was standing in his cupola.

Tanks operate with infantry support for a reason - if they don't it often goes very very badly.

On the purely gaming side having the ability for everything to damage everything else means that there is always a chance which IMO is a good thing - we all know how much fun it was in previous editions for Orks to face Knights - even though the fluff has them causing a threat by climbing all over it and trying to smash it up.

And vehicles either need the ability once more to simply splatter some infantry by driving over them

Well they at least have attacks now rather than Tank shock which so many were immune to but I would not be against vehicles being better at it.

I think strength and toughness should be lost, on accuracy.

Let people get a better chance to hurt the unit, but they aren't useless after two turns.

 Mr Morden wrote:
It happened - reading book on snipers and in some desperation the women were trying this - most failed and some killed doing so but now and again it worked. They fired at the driving slits. You don't need to destroy a tank to make it ineffective

Yep, that was exactly my point. It may be rare for a rifle or a frag grenade to damage or even incapacitate a tank, but it happens.

Throughout 20th-century military history, tanks have regularly been knocked out not because the armor is penetrated and the crew all killed, but because the crew bails in response to their vehicle no longer being able to move, no longer being armed, having a dead TC, being driven out by smoke and/or fire, or the sheer psychological pressure of being stuck in a tiny metal box amplifying the deafening sound of bullets hitting the hull. None of these require the hull to even be penetrated.

 Wyzilla wrote:
And none of those are going to do anything to the tank because it's a frag grenade, a fragmentary device with minimal ability to penetrate armor and will cause superficial damage to a tank, not cause it to catastrophically explode.

You know fragmentation grenades were regularly used to disable tanks in WW2, right? A grenade to a track roller results in a non-repairable de-tracking, allowing infantry to close and knock out the tank by firing into vision slits, stuffing more grenades into the turret ring or cupola, blasting into the engine deck to knock out electrical power, or any other number of nasty tricks. That's assuming they haven't already bailed, which if you're a tank crewman in a mobility-killed vehicle surrounded by enemy infantry is going to seem like a pretty good idea.

Finnish infantry beat Soviet armor with molotov cocktails during the Winter War, despite their utter inability to penetrate armor. The Soviets learned, as did the rest of the world, that a lack of armor penetration ability does not limit infantry to causing 'superficial damage to a tank'.

During the Battle of Baghdad in 2003, an M1 Abrams, a tank with armor so thick that PG-7 EFPs (dedicated anti-tank rockets) cannot penetrate it, was hit with machine gun fire which penetrated and ignited an external fuel tank. The fire spread to the engine compartment and knocked out the tank.

One thing I have consistently found is that wargamers, regardless of era or setting, consistently underestimate the vulnerability of armor to infantry, and utterly neglect the psychology of tank crews. Allowing tanks to operate with zero fear of being harmed by basic infantry is far more unrealistic than the possibility that multiple platoons of infantry coordinating fire at short range for the entire length of a game might knock out an intact tank, something I have yet to see actually happen on the tabletop.

5Yeah, Tanks irl aren't these unstoppable juggernauts that can only be beaten with specialized armor piercing weapons. You totally can cripple a tank with a lucky shot, and getting mobbed by infantry is still a possibility.

Hell, a molotov is just a bottle of gasoline, and that was quite effective against tanks, as whilst it didn't make the tank explode, the burning liquid would sometimes seep inside the tank to burn the crew, or melt the rubber on the wheels. An immobilized tank could be mobbed by infantry, who will seek out weakpoints in the tank.
Even today a modern tank could be rendered inoperable if the molotov destroys the electronics, it and if it lands in an open hatch its still game over. And that's not even mentioning the psychological effect it has on the crew.

It would be interesting if morale modifiers were based on wounds lost, not models, to represent the tank crew or monster freaking out. Of course, their morale stat would have to be pretty high too so they don't just run away if they take a single wound. At least 10, I would think. That way the vehicle / monster would have to take 5 wounds in a round in order to have a remote chance of failing.

To be fair, any successful infantry attack against a tank without dedicated anti-tank weaponry is ridiculously rare. Molotov cocktails work when prepared in advance and the attackers have ample cover such as an urban or heavily forested area.

Thinking that tank crews are highly vulnerable to basic infantry is an overblown myth. Good luck with that crowbar on a tank hatch...not happening. People struggle to open a damaged car door with a crowbar. Shooting into gun slits? What tank since the 30's hasn't had ballistic glass covering vision slits? The Japanese used to try to attack the vision slits on American tanks during WW II with bayonets only to discover this had no effect (this tactic was used against Russian BT tanks some years earlier). US tank crews stated that the most annoying thing about Japanese infantry attacks was the huge number of flies attracted after the suicidal troops got ground into the tracks. Platoons of tanks often fired upon themselves to scrub enemy infantry off of tanks because they knew the machine guns wouldn't harm the platoon.

Attacking a tank is a very dangerous business, and without special weapons it is desperate if not suicidal.

Indeed.

Infantry without dedicated AT weapons can harm tanks, but it's extremely dangerous and relatively rare. A lot of the stuff mentioned is blind luck or only relevant to early tank designs, or reliant on an isolated and unsupported vehicle being caught in close quarters by preprepared ambush. A molotov cocktail isn't gonna do much to any remotely modern vehicle, and a hand grenade causing (field) irreparable track damage is going to require someone sticking their hand into something analogous to a very large meatgrinder. That said, acknowledging that tanks arent totally invulnerable is good too, sometimes a crazy yahoo is willing to risk a hand in the tracks and doesn't get immediately mowed down.

As is, the system 40k uses in 8E is broadly ok, you aren't going to be able to successfully deal with armor without dedicated tools, but you can do minor damage or finish off an already badly damaged vehicle. That works for me.

As far as the OT goes, no. Meaningful damage tracks is the best think to happen to vehicles this edition. If anything I'd vote for the opposite of doing away with damage, it feels like most vehicles need 25% - 50% more damage boxes.