As the title says, which system do you prefer? The old armour facings on vehicles, or the new 'multi-wound/high toughness' combo?

Either works for me.

What doesn't is the lack of vehicle fire arcs.

I think either system works in its own right. When you consider facings and armour on specific parts of vehicles I think that its a nice idea, but was always a tiny bit odd that it only applied to vehicles. Then you had things like huge Tyranids where it had no effect at all because they weren't a vehicle.

That said I think facings and fire arcs on vehicles does make them stand out as something different to the regular infantry models. A big beefy tank feels more like a tank when its got those fire arcs and when its got those different armour values and when the direction it faces matters.

I personally preferred armour facings to the new wounds characteristic as it allowed for a little bit more depth and there were consequences for manoeuvering/positioning your vehicle in certain ways.

I really liked the old system, hitting a vehicle from the rear, where its armor is weaker, simply makes more sense. Also vehicle facings mattered for shooting. It had more tactical depth. I dont see any problems combining both systems. If you hit a vehicle from the rear you would improve the weapons AP by 1, or add one more damage, or something similiar.

I think a more apt question would be: "What do you prefer, Armour facings or Toughness?". I think I still prefer Armour facings, but wounds work better than the old Hull Points. I guess it's a mixed bag for me.

I don't like either.

Armor value was fine, but the wounding system was silly.
Multi-wound/high toughness is considerably better, but it took away the essence of a vehicle being a vehicle, especially when it comes to tanks.

Maybe if they made a rule that if you shoot at a vehicle from the front, it counts as having +1 or 2 toughness, I would be satisfied.

Vehicles are actually playable now so I prefer the current system.

I think GW has not really done ether system that well. I think they could have had a mix of bother and it would have been much better, this new system i think is a bit wonky.

ccs wrote:
Either works for me.

What doesn't is the lack of vehicle fire arcs.

the problem with vehicle fire arcs is the model designers don't really think beyond "THIS LOOKS KEWL!" so some models tend to get fire arcs that aren't really that hot. The Land raider is exhibit A in that regard

The current integration of vehicles into the same framework as other things is vastly better for playability purposes. I'd rather see the game incorporate some sort of crossfire mechanic or flanking bonus against all targets (like Epic had, if you could pincer the target between your forces you got a nice little bonus to your effect) to promote maneuver instead of only kicking vehicles in the face.

BrianDavion wrote:

ccs wrote:
Either works for me.

What doesn't is the lack of vehicle fire arcs.

the problem with vehicle fire arcs is the model designers don't really think beyond "THIS LOOKS KEWL!" so some models tend to get fire arcs that aren't really that hot. The Land raider is exhibit A in that regard

Aye its a very solid thought. Esp when you've vehicles that don't have their primary weapons on a turret. There's a good few Siege style tanks in the game which don't have their weapon on a turret. Now that's fine for a game of Epic or other 6mm or similar scale game because they would typically be far back from the front lints. However in 40K they aren't. They can be right up close to the front lines so they have to do a lot more moving side to side to keep things in range.

IT also takes us back to the unfair state of vehicles vs things like demon engines and tyranids which traditionally had no fire arcs and yet were, for power and points, pretty much equivalent to vehicles.

Much happier with the current system.

Too many issues with arcs on vehicles and also the whole Monsters vs Vehicles debarcle in previous editions

Darsath wrote:
I think a more apt question would be: "What do you prefer, Armour facings or Toughness?". I think I still prefer Armour facings, but wounds work better than the old Hull Points. I guess it's a mixed bag for me.

Same opinion here. Wounds are better than the old vehicle damage chart or hull points, but I miss the feeling armour facing had.

I strongly prefer wounds as the concept of instant killing a vehicle to a single shot was silly. Fire arcs, fire points, immobilized/stunned/shaken results on the damage table were mechanics that I didn't like and I'm glad they're gone. No more debating about what side of the vehicle (aka what AV) a shooting model actually sees, which is another point in favor of the new system.

I dislike the insane amount of firepower that armies can easily bring in this (but also the previous) edition though. But that's an issue that comes from a different matter which is the introduction of super dudes and super vehicles to "standard" games; they should have stayed at apocalypse games or similar huge formats. I miss the times when 1-2 dreads, a land raider, a battlewagon, etc were the centerpiece models.

On the table i prefered the old system, since with this one you have dumb things like tanks moving sideways.

For gameplay i prefer the current one.

Though, even with the current system i would put armor facings in again, but only for Titanic models. +1 damage if hit from rear.

I do understand that considering the scale of the game, the facing of a stubber on leman russ should not be reprensented, but the biggest thiings should.

I,prefer the new, fixed some of the goofy ass firing arcs that caused some vehicles to be pretty terrible. It also greatly reduced arguments of what facing you were hitting, imperium vehicles were easy but eldar and their kin could be god awful to figure out sometimes.
The new system is also better for teaching new players as you don’t have to teach them multiple damage dealing systems.

New system - fixes needing to resolve angles on alien weirdness, makes vehicles no longer second fiddle to the all-powerful Monster rule, much quicker to play and degrading ability is more interesting that random results.

Fire arcs will never work unless the vehicle datasheets start specifying the arcs for each weapon listed.

Armor!

The current system, by a country mile.

I always find it strange how people like to talk about armour facings as if they mattered in any way, I mean I play Dark Elda, Craftworld Eldar, Harlequins and Tyranids and for all 4 of them you relied on either Haywire, Melta, D weapons or combat and none of those things gave a toss about armour facings.

With the games current scale, I vastly prefer the toughness/wounds system. At smaller scales, I wouldn't mind having armor facings, but I would also want more detailed movement rules to go with it.
But, I do think the game could benefit from simplified firing arcs of front, rear, right, and left 180° arcs. You won't have the visual disconnect of a right sponson shooting something on the left side of the tank or a front mounted hull gun shooting to the rear, but you also don't have to quibble over minor angle issues like in the past.

Current rules, much better!

Dreadnoughts and similar play so much better and can go toe to toe with their monster counterparts.

If anything we need to redo the Str vs T system, Monsters should have higher W count but Vehicles should have better saves and T instead (Monsters are easier to damage but take more, Vehicles are harder to actually damage but of course are a lot more vulnerable)

Armor facings and fire arcs were stupid. Armor facings never mattered and created arguments on anything that wasn't a rhino chassis and fire arcs were just straight up nonsense. As it turns out, making a vehicle pay for a sponson it's not going to be able to shoot 90% of the time makes the vehicle pretty bad.

 Blackie wrote:
I strongly prefer wounds as the concept of instant killing a vehicle to a single shot was silly.

It's actually quite possible that a single hit could take out a tank. Take a HEAT round into the ammo storage rack and you have a "oh bugger the tank is on fire" situation very quickly. Depending on where and how a shot hits you could see a tank taken out by an AT gun in 1 hit or that it takes dozens of hits. Now how good a mechanic that was for a game like 40k is hard to say.

As for the original question I personally prefer the AV system as it gave a certain feel of being bullet proof against low strength weapons and forced the need for heavy hitter weapons or flanking to the weaker side/rear armor. With just toughness and a big stack of wounds they seemed like a rolling meat box and the lack of vehicle mechanics further made them feel like fat infantry. That said vehicles with AV needed an armor save to discourage high strength AP nothing spam from stripping hull points.

Spoletta wrote:
On the table i prefered the old system, since with this one you have dumb things like tanks moving sideways.

I used to have two rhinos moving like a wall, each one using the other to hide its back!
So no change here.

 Vankraken wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
I strongly prefer wounds as the concept of instant killing a vehicle to a single shot was silly.

It's actually quite possible that a single hit could take out a tank. Take a HEAT round into the ammo storage rack and you have a "oh bugger the tank is on fire" situation very quickly. Depending on where and how a shot hits you could see a tank taken out by an AT gun in 1 hit or that it takes dozens of hits. Now how good a mechanic that was for a game like 40k is hard to say.

"oh bugger the tank is on fire" - if you have time to say this sentence after your tank takes a HEAT in the ammo rack, consider yourself exceedingly lucky.

It's better now than before, for sure

I like that everything uses the same system now. And while tanks generally being either fine or very dead is realistic, it made for a weird contrast to slowly-degrading monstrous creatures, and wasn't fitting for 40K IMO.

However, I have two complaints with the current system:

-A 3+ save makes vehicles more vulnerable to low-damage, high-volume weapons than to dedicated anti-tank guns. I'd much rather see 2+ be the default for tanks (with fewer wounds to compensate), with lighter transports keeping the 3+.

-Lack of flanking mechanics in the game as a whole means there is no longer incentive to get around the sides of tanks. I'd be happy with something basic, like giving every unit 180 degree front and rear arcs, and counting their save as 1 point worse if hit in the rear arc.

So really I don't think the issue is with the toughness/wounds system, but rather some of the details of implementation.

Another factor is that S and AP are largely redundant to one another as far as mechanics go, but that's neither here nor there.

toughtness/wounds 100% the issue with armor to me was all the arguments about facings, sure on a rhino its corner to corner, same on a landraider. on an ork battlewagon it mean you have a very narrow front armor and usually were being hit on side armor... but where the liens go on a wave serpant or devilfish was constantly argued.

Another thing that always bugged me on armor facings boiled down to... why would they have weaker armor on the rear? seems like you would have the whole vehicle nice and tough, what if you need to run? do you have to do it in reverse?

 G00fySmiley wrote:
Another thing that always bugged me on armor facings boiled down to... why would they have weaker armor on the rear? seems like you would have the whole vehicle nice and tough, what if you need to run? do you have to do it in reverse?

If you mean IRL, it's because weight/material conservation. Most shots were fired against the front of the tank in engagement, least against the rear. If a tank had the same armor all around, it would get significantly heavier, thus slower, bigger and more expensive and/ or harder to maintain.
Speaking of early WW2 tanks, the difference would be miniscule, but imagine this with a Tiger tank with 57 tons and 120mm front armor, with 120mm all around it would easily surpass 80tons in weight.
Moreover, if your tank isn't the last one in the column, or the enemy didn't ambush you/made a rear attack, you have your rear covered by somebody else.

And yes, you would reverse.

The current system is vastly superior to the old armor facing and firing arcs rules.

That said, I would like to see some mechanic that makes tanks and similar less susceptible to high-volume, low-damage firepower. Maybe something like a 4+++ against weapons with AP 0. Or Assault, Rapid Fire and Pistol weapons have their AP reduced to 0 against them? These are just some off the cuff ideas. I didn't really think them through, but maybe they could work.

I prefer the toughness/armour paradigm as it lets you fit more in and in a more granular fashion.

What I'd like to see is a cross-fire rule like in Epic Armageddon where there's a -1 to saving throws based on targets being between two friendly units.

 catbarf wrote:
I like that everything uses the same system now. And while tanks generally being either fine or very dead is realistic, it made for a weird contrast to slowly-degrading monstrous creatures, and wasn't fitting for 40K IMO.

However, I have two complaints with the current system:

-A 3+ save makes vehicles more vulnerable to low-damage, high-volume weapons than to dedicated anti-tank guns. I'd much rather see 2+ be the default for tanks (with fewer wounds to compensate), with lighter transports keeping the 3+.

-Lack of flanking mechanics in the game as a whole means there is no longer incentive to get around the sides of tanks. I'd be happy with something basic, like giving every unit 180 degree front and rear arcs, and counting their save as 1 point worse if hit in the rear arc.

So really I don't think the issue is with the toughness/wounds system, but rather some of the details of implementation.

Another factor is that S and AP are largely redundant to one another as far as mechanics go, but that's neither here nor there.

I think this about covers it. I prefer wounds, but I wouldn't mind a little tweaking. Since invulnerable saves are abundant I would probably spring for +1 to wound when shooting the rear rather than an armor save adjustment...might be too strong though.

Nurglitch wrote:
I prefer the toughness/armour paradigm as it lets you fit more in and in a more granular fashion.

What I'd like to see is a cross-fire rule like in Epic Armageddon where there's a -1 to saving throws based on targets being between two friendly units.

This is so important, and even a boost for close combat unit. At the moment what matters for shooting units is staying the longest linear distance away that’s still in range. If they have to get cross fire to be effective, then close combat units can actually have targets coming to them, in a terrifying game of chicken. This buff to shooting is probably the #1 fix for close combat.

 p5freak wrote:
I really liked the old system, hitting a vehicle from the rear, where its armor is weaker, simply makes more sense. Also vehicle facings mattered for shooting. It had more tactical depth. I dont see any problems combining both systems. If you hit a vehicle from the rear you would improve the weapons AP by 1, or add one more damage, or something similiar.

Yeah and this, once more, is this amazing answer that makes it slightly less important how much fire power you bought, and more important how well both players play. +1 or +2 damage would be fine, just for having any LoS to the back.

I prefer the wounds system and the degrading profile with two caveats. I’d prefer it to be variable or something based on facing simply to add some depth and also, though this is more a byproduct of the streamlined wounding chart is simply some weapons should not be able to hurt certain things. A lasgun should have ZERO chance of harming any tank in the game, let alone a Land Raider.

It makes the game more tactical and speeds it up. No more need to roll a literal bucketful of dice in the hope you’ll remove a couple of wounds from that Russ.

I am glad armor facings are gone, it just makes for a bunch of extra arguments and really doesn’t add enough depth to the game to be worth it. It’s the same reason I am glad blast markers are gone, they jut slowed the game down horribly because players never agreed about where they landed or how many models were covered.

Same with the old damage table, it’s silly that a las cannon can 1 shot a tank but the MC next to it is perfectly fine it just lost a couple wounds.

By far the wounds system. At least it makes everyone equal, none of the broken nonsense "this Tau battlesuit clearly is a walker with open cockpit controlled by multiple operators with slow keyboards and should be vulnerable to a single grenade kill, but it gets MC rules to make it more OP, while SM dreadnoughts controlled like second body with mind are immobile walkers because frak you". Either everything should be a vehicle, or nothing.

 Vankraken wrote:
It's actually quite possible that a single hit could take out a tank. Take a HEAT round into the ammo storage rack and you have a "oh bugger the tank is on fire" situation very quickly. Depending on where and how a shot hits you could see a tank taken out by an AT gun in 1 hit or that it takes dozens of hits. Now how good a mechanic that was for a game like 40k is hard to say.

That used to be a thing 30 years ago, but today, when tanks all have instant gas extinguishers and the bullets are stored in armored cages with blow out panels directing all explosion force outward with little damage to tank it's no longer true. And that's pretty basic stuff, 40K vehicles should be way more advanced in this. Conversely, why you can't shoot a Carnifex in heart or brain, but even a colossal artillery shell will only ever deal 1 wound?

As for the original question I personally prefer the AV system as it gave a certain feel of being bullet proof against low strength weapons and forced the need for heavy hitter weapons or flanking to the weaker side/rear armor.

Unless you had Tank Hunters, then these exact 'weak' guns suddenly magically could kill it somehow

I still remember how that one Forge World chapter was always 'gotcha' middle finger moment to opponents when their SM with pure bolter loadouts suddenly started cleaning table from "immune" vehicles better than if they had lascannons...

 p5freak wrote:
I really liked the old system, hitting a vehicle from the rear, where its armor is weaker, simply makes more sense.

It makes zero sense if you think about it for even a nanosecond. Why aren't missiles always hitting rear armour? Why SM jump pack model with melta can't target weakest top armour? Why Land Raider with exposed engine is AV 14 in the rear, but Leman Russ is 10 despite thick sloped armour in the back? Why Tau get broken rules that allow them to always hit rear, even with unguided projectiles from the front, despite rear being out of sight, out or range, and in a frakking cave blocking all shots? And why this bullet teleporting gak suddenly fails when targeting Land Raiders? Why flyers have facings when you should only really see bottom of it? Why meltagun or lascannon can blow up a tank but merely scratches a carnifex, when if anything it's body organs, not redundant machinery in a tank that should be more vulnerable to have hole blown in it? Why predator is vastly more resistant to fire than a Rhino, despite looking the same, and why you can't add this magical invisible armor to Rhinos? Why is Karamazov an MC despite clearly riding in a dreadnought, completely exposed, and with vastly inferior control system than a real dread? Etc, etc...

Also vehicle facings mattered for shooting. It had more tactical depth.

It had no depth, besides That Guys arguing you're 0.1 degree off firing zone, so you can't shoot, claiming Knights and Land Raiders can't hit anything in front of them, and half of the guns on your vehicle always being useless because they couldn't target the same thing due to hull blockages and dumb firing arcs. This especially made no sense because each game turn is several minutes, and 8th edition got it exactly right - it's all abstract. Nothing stops tank from rotating in place to fire a gun, then rotating back to fire the other, if anything, what was dumb was the fact the turn was treated like a six second snapshot for vehicles only when MCs got to fire all their guns from their behind if they so wished, even a Tyrannofex

I felt like fire arcs made the game more cinematic, more visually interesting, and more tactical. The current system feels worse for casual, narrative, and competitive play to me.

I loved facings. I miss them.

 Irbis wrote:
By far the wounds system. At least it makes everyone equal, none of the broken nonsense "this Tau battlesuit clearly is a walker with open cockpit controlled by multiple operators with slow keyboards and should be vulnerable to a single grenade kill, but it gets MC rules to make it more OP, while SM dreadnoughts controlled like second body with mind are immobile walkers because frak you". Either everything should be a vehicle, or nothing.

I'd much rather have given arcs/facings to monsters than turned vehicles into the same overly-abstracted all-round squidgy balls of numbers that monsters were.

As for the original question I personally prefer the AV system as it gave a certain feel of being bullet proof against low strength weapons and forced the need for heavy hitter weapons or flanking to the weaker side/rear armor.

Unless you had Tank Hunters, then these exact 'weak' guns suddenly magically could kill it somehow

I still remember how that one Forge World chapter was always 'gotcha' middle finger moment to opponents when their SM with pure bolter loadouts suddenly started cleaning table from "immune" vehicles better than if they had lascannons...

Tank Hunters was +1. Your bolters could scratch AV11 instead of AV10. Not sure how that suddenly turned them into lascannons.

 p5freak wrote:
I really liked the old system, hitting a vehicle from the rear, where its armor is weaker, simply makes more sense.

It makes zero sense if you think about it for even a nanosecond. Why aren't missiles always hitting rear armour?

Turning radius. Missiles usually proceed along the shortest path from the firer to the target in order to get the most range possible out of their fuel and to get there as quickly as possible to stop anti-missile defenses, they don't go along swirly paths all over the place.

Why SM jump pack model with melta can't target weakest top armour?

What's the altitude they're actually jumping to? How close to the tank are they? Maybe this is represented by their ability to move over the tank and get to its back arc more quickly than infantry?

Why Land Raider with exposed engine is AV 14 in the rear, but Leman Russ is 10 despite thick sloped armour in the back?

Maybe the exhaust pipes don't represent an 'exposed engine'?

Why Tau get broken rules that allow them to always hit rear, even with unguided projectiles from the front, despite rear being out of sight, out or range, and in a frakking cave blocking all shots?

...They don't?

Why flyers have facings when you should only really see bottom of it?

Think about the angles for a moment. If you could only ever see the bottom why are the guns pointing forwards instead of down?

Why meltagun or lascannon can blow up a tank but merely scratches a carnifex, when if anything it's body organs, not redundant machinery in a tank that should be more vulnerable to have hole blown in it?

Using the vehicle rules for monsters is as good an answer to this as using monster rules for vehicles.

Why predator is vastly more resistant to fire than a Rhino, despite looking the same, and why you can't add this magical invisible armor to Rhinos?

Transport capacity. The Rhino is structurally weaker and carries fewer guns because it's trying to have the maximum transport bay, the Predator has massively thicker front armour from the inside, not added onto the outside. Fluff-ways, anyway.

Also vehicle facings mattered for shooting. It had more tactical depth.

It had no depth, besides That Guys arguing you're 0.1 degree off firing zone, so you can't shoot, claiming Knights and Land Raiders can't hit anything in front of them, and half of the guns on your vehicle always being useless because they couldn't target the same thing due to hull blockages and dumb firing arcs. This especially made no sense because each game turn is several minutes, and 8th edition got it exactly right - it's all abstract. Nothing stops tank from rotating in place to fire a gun, then rotating back to fire the other, if anything, what was dumb was the fact the turn was treated like a six second snapshot for vehicles only when MCs got to fire all their guns from their behind if they so wished, even a Tyrannofex

 AnomanderRake wrote:
I felt like fire arcs made the game more cinematic, more visually interesting, and more tactical.

I didn't get that at all. It was always, "which corner can I shove this tank into". Experiences vary, I suppose.

Maybe shooting the rear arc causes +2 to the explosion roll. That could be cinematic on its own.

Facings are a great idea until you run into vehicles that aren't quad shape. Suddenly you have to debate what side you're actually hitting at particular angles.

Now if GW actually took time to show what facing is what, sure that is fine.

For now, the current system works perfectly. People can complain "but muh Lasguns kill Baneblades" until they actually do any sort of math and see how absurdly long it is to do that.

I wish firing arcs had remained in the game, but been applied to ALL units, not just a handful of tanks. However, I like the degrading profiles better than the damage table.

I think it should be possible to one-shot the larger stuff, but it should be a rare, lucky thing to occur - and better suited to AA games. For 40Ks IGOUGO, letting vehicles tank multiple hits is vitally necessary just so you get the chance to do something before being blown off the table.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:


For now, the current system works perfectly. People can complain "but muh Lasguns kill Baneblades" until they actually do any sort of math and see how absurdly long it is to do that.

Yes and no. It used to be outside the realm of possibility (which was basically the argument at the launch of 8th). That said, Nu-Marine Centurions, Ultramarine Aggressors, etc.. do bolter Knights off the table in a round. The constant lethality-creep of 2 years of 8th has brought to game into the realm of that previously mostly theoretical math example.

Firing arcs were fine, but vehicle facings were just something that was gamed. The current system is far less gamey (and is logical if you use the simple abstraction that vehicles and infantry/monsters are continuously moving around/rotating, etc. while in-game).

With the absurd direction 40K has gone, the "realism" or "tactical depth" (which never really existed, except on paper) has no place. 40K has almost never been a typical wargame and it's way the feth off the reservation now.

Armour facings, etc. wouldn't mesh with the other rules from 8th, and would feel disjointed and weird.

The last time I felt facings really worked were 2nd edition, where vehicle movement/rotation/turning was equally monitored/limited and the rules were far more crunchy and wargaming related.

It's a matter of scale and functionality.

Facings and firing arcs work in a skirmish game with deep rules and few models.

In a game like modern 40k, that can have several hundred models on the table, dozens of vehicles, no sense of scale, and relatively shallow but complex rules, wounds are by far the better option, particularly when the arcs and facings only applied to one unit type in the past (vehicles) but not others (like monsters or artillery or crew served heavy weapons).

Edit: GW never really got a separate AV system working well. Vehicles never worked quite right from 3rd-7th, there was (barring 5E) always an issue with "skimmers are better just because!", and balance on vehicles wobbled wildly. While an AV system could be made to work, GW's various iterations never really did.

On balance, I'll have to go with the new system.

I like the idea of having armour values in place of toughness/wounds, however, it was almost always executed atrociously.

- Armour facings rarely made much difference in my experience, since there tended to be little to no difference between front and side armour and tanks almost never advanced far enough for attacking their rear armour to be practical - even for fast races. Also, working out which facing you were shooting at could get really awkward with the non-box-shaped vehicles.

- The fact that armour was immune to certain weapons could make vehicle-heavy lists rather depressing to play against. This was made vastly worse with the inclusion of Knights, where every weapon with S6 or lower might as well not even exist.

- Vehicle damage tables (and later Hull Points) have tended to be rather hit or miss. Some editions it would take meltaguns to do anything more than gently caress a vehicle's hull, other times every vehicle might as well have been made from matchsticks and gunpowder.

- Also, in terms of fighting against vehicles, there were issues in that more and more vehicles started to ignore swathes of the damage table. As usual, Knights were by far the most egregious example as they were all but immune to every result bar 'explodes'.

- Then of course we had the issue that GW realised monsters were more durable than vehicles and so started to turn models that were clearly vehicles into monsters. The Dreadknight and Riptide were probably the worst examples of this. It also highlighted the ever-growing disparity between vehicles and monsters, the latter couldn't be immobilised, couldn't have their weapons destroyed, were a lot harder to one-shot etc..

 Overread wrote:
I think either system works in its own right. When you consider facings and armour on specific parts of vehicles I think that its a nice idea, but was always a tiny bit odd that it only applied to vehicles. Then you had things like huge Tyranids where it had no effect at all because they weren't a vehicle.

That said I think facings and fire arcs on vehicles does make them stand out as something different to the regular infantry models. A big beefy tank feels more like a tank when its got those fire arcs and when its got those different armour values and when the direction it faces matters.

A big beefy tank also feels much more like a tank when it can tank shock the hell out of units.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:


For now, the current system works perfectly. People can complain "but muh Lasguns kill Baneblades" until they actually do any sort of math and see how absurdly long it is to do that.

Yes and no. It used to be outside the realm of possibility (which was basically the argument at the launch of 8th). That said, Nu-Marine Centurions, Ultramarine Aggressors, etc.. do bolter Knights off the table in a round. The constant lethality-creep of 2 years of 8th has brought to game into the realm of that previously mostly theoretical math example.

They...really don't even under Doctrines. Have you actually mathed out how many of each it takes to bolt down a Knight?

Sunny Side Up wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:


For now, the current system works perfectly. People can complain "but muh Lasguns kill Baneblades" until they actually do any sort of math and see how absurdly long it is to do that.

Yes and no. It used to be outside the realm of possibility (which was basically the argument at the launch of 8th). That said, Nu-Marine Centurions, Ultramarine Aggressors, etc.. do bolter Knights off the table in a round. The constant lethality-creep of 2 years of 8th has brought to game into the realm of that previously mostly theoretical math example.

You're talking about a unit that costs about as much as a knight. It's still efficient, but certainly not cheap.

Realism makes the game more intuitive.
As it is now the wounds mechsnic zux... badly.
Facings forced difficult choices e.g. get the shot and be exposed or ... this was dramatic.
Now we see bolters firing through enemy units to kill tsnks with volume and rerolls and stacked master buffs ... garbage gamey removed - BrookM

I'm sure the old system could have been made to work, but it didn't. That sort of sums of 7th.

I mean I guess I can understand the dislike that nearly 400 points of buffed up intercessors can shoot a rhino to death - but it really doesn't feel like a problem with the game.

But then this sort of sums up the problem. 40k is essentially abstraction piled on abstraction (or, what we might call "a game"), but then with vehicles it was meant to embrace realism. Which perhaps unsurprisingly just made vehicles rubbish (or, in much earlier editions, crazy overpowered).

I think they need to just add in a rear facing rule, like shooting at rear armor increases the ap by 1 unless the vehicle has a keyword like "heavy" or something.

 Ketara wrote:
As the title says, which system do you prefer? The old armour facings on vehicles, or the new 'multi-wound/high toughness' combo?

From the most technical perspective, I prefer armor facings and damage effects governed by a critical hit table. It's more "realistic", and detail can be a lot of fun even though it wasn't really tactically significant.

However, from the gameplay perspective, I also believe that abstracting the defense of the vehicle has made a much smoother flowing game.

Wounds. It's easier to remember one number than it is to know 3. If they brought back armour facings I would probably stop playing.

I think vehicles in general should have better saves, to put more emphasis on high-AP weapons being used to counter them.

I really enjoy 8th editions take on vehicles They are way tougher than back in the hull point days, and I like that vehicle arcs aren't a thing anymore.

With todays mechanics it still take 3-4 lascannon shots to take out a predator, used to be in previous editions a single melta or lascannon could take down the same vehicle down in 1 shot.

Facings and armour values might have had a place up until 5th edition, in 6th and 7th where I got to know them they were totally useless as most vehicles died to plasma, CC or even bolters within 1 round anyway. It was a clumsy mechanic without any value but to make all vehicles useless. Superheavies were good because they ignored most vehicle rules, monsters even more.

The system right now works and is good enough for the scale 40K has become. I'd like more tanks to ignore the movement penalty on their heavy weapons, more assault rules like the flying Rhino has and maybe more ways to take vehicles out in CC again (that might be more a problem of the powerfist and losing meltabombs for me as a CSM player). Also, destroyerblades on Chaos tanks need a comeback, they're even in the kit!

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
As the title says, which system do you prefer? The old armour facings on vehicles, or the new 'multi-wound/high toughness' combo?

From the most technical perspective, I prefer armor facings and damage effects governed by a critical hit table. It's more "realistic", and detail can be a lot of fun even though it wasn't really tactically significant.

However, from the gameplay perspective, I also believe that abstracting the defense of the vehicle has made a much smoother flowing game.

The critical hit table wasn't used though, basically. You either had Grav, Haywire, simply relied on middling S7 shots to glance stuff to death, or 5+ Melta Shots hitting at once (which at that point is rolling terribly necessary).

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
I felt like fire arcs made the game more cinematic, more visually interesting, and more tactical.

I didn't get that at all. It was always, "which corner can I shove this tank into". Experiences vary, I suppose.

Maybe shooting the rear arc causes +2 to the explosion roll. That could be cinematic on its own.

"Which corner can I shove this tank into" was a product of the damage/durability skew in 7th that made any vehicle without an Invulnerable save sort of pointless (high-ROF S7+ and Destroyer weapons vs. hull points). Try 30k (where AV is higher and there isn't as much spammable move-and-fire AT) or go back to 4e-5e (where AV wasn't higher but there was even less spammable move-and-fire AT).

I really did enjoy armor facings, but as many here have already said there were absolutely issues with the system.

Namely:

- Arguments on which facings where which
- MC vs Vehicle Discrepancies
- OHKs on vehicles
- Haywire, lance, grav, and D weapons invalidating durability
- TLoS was a pain to use with multiple weapon sponsons

And the new system got rid of all of that besides haywire but feels like it just has far less depth. I really get annoyed when a tailpipe spots one of my models and suddenly it get hits with the entire barrage from the vehicle. It just doesn't sit well with me

I'd wish they mix the systems slightly, retain the wounds/save style of this edition but give all MC/Vehicles Front/Rear Arcs (much easier to bisect then cut in 4 ways) make the rear arc have some benefit for being shot at. Maybe +1 Damage, -1 Armor, or -1 Toughness. Maybe make it dependent on the vehicle/MC your attacking

Further, you attach weapons to either Front, Back, or Both Arcs. and require the target to being in that arc.

Also, a sidenote but please give tracked vehicles a bonus to WS when they charge to represent Tank-shock rules

 sfshilo wrote:
I think they need to just add in a rear facing rule, like shooting at rear armor increases the ap by 1 unless the vehicle has a keyword like "heavy" or something.

That's way too much of a benefit for things, if we're going to be honest about it.

The ideal solution, IMO, is for vehicles to get something tied to the wound table and their ability to 'shrug off' damage.

The brief, brief gubbins I've given some thought to is this:

Armored Behemoth: While this model is using its top values on the Damage/Wound Table, it ignores Armor Penetration modifiers of -1 or lower and Damage values of 1.

The wording needs work and obviously it would have to get expanded to be the top two values for Titanic units or the like--but it makes it so that the vehicles which are supposed to be tougher and more durable aren't just getting spammed down by little things.

A similar rule could be added to Monstrous Creatures that have Wound Tables.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
As the title says, which system do you prefer? The old armour facings on vehicles, or the new 'multi-wound/high toughness' combo?

From the most technical perspective, I prefer armor facings and damage effects governed by a critical hit table. It's more "realistic", and detail can be a lot of fun even though it wasn't really tactically significant.

However, from the gameplay perspective, I also believe that abstracting the defense of the vehicle has made a much smoother flowing game.

Reading through, this seems to sum up the majority of opinions. Swapping them to wounds has made for a more efficient and simpler gaming experience, but has cost the cinematic and unique feel of tanks. Now they're just bigger models.

So that leads to a followup question. Would any of you change back to armour facings if you could?

 Ketara wrote:

So that leads to a followup question. Would any of you change back to armour facings if you could?

With the current ruleset? Hard pass. With a different ruleset, where facings were applied to a broader array of units and built inherently into the larger functionality of the game with a smaller scope/model count in general, absolutely.

Frankly, armor facings were garbage. There were enough ways to get around them that it just became "I CAN DEEP STRIKE FIRST!" and vehicles were deleted.

Doesn't matter the rules set, vehicles have always been inferior for 40k--barring some oddities. The big thing is and always will be that negative modifiers make or break vehicles, and invulnerable saves do as well.

BrianDavion wrote:

ccs wrote:
Either works for me.

What doesn't is the lack of vehicle fire arcs.

the problem with vehicle fire arcs is the model designers don't really think beyond "THIS LOOKS KEWL!" so some models tend to get fire arcs that aren't really that hot. The Land raider is exhibit A in that regard

You don't like the land raider design?? Go back in time to 1915/16 & bitch at the WWI Brits. They're the ones who designed their tanks with side arc firing sponsons.

Current system.
I could maybe get behind a house rule of “-1 armor save when directly hitting 0% obscured rear armor,” but not the constant LOS checks of old. Also as some said above, some of the tank designs with regards to weapon aiming are flat out dumb. Like say...a flyer with an infantry-shredding gun ON TOP of the flyer.

 Vaktathi wrote:
It's a matter of scale and functionality.

Facings and firing arcs work in a skirmish game with deep rules and few models.

In a game like modern 40k, that can have several hundred models on the table, dozens of vehicles, no sense of scale, and relatively shallow but complex rules, wounds are by far the better option, particularly when the arcs and facings only applied to one unit type in the past (vehicles) but not others (like monsters or artillery or crew served heavy weapons).

I disagree on the scale point, but I agree on the rest. The important part is the depth of the rules. GW has decided that they are done with in-depth rule systems for now, and keeping Vehicles to Toughness does work better for that shallowness. But hey, I don't think anyone expected Battletech out of Warhammer, either.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Edit: GW never really got a separate AV system working well. Vehicles never worked quite right from 3rd-7th, there was (barring 5E) always an issue with "skimmers are better just because!", and balance on vehicles wobbled wildly. While an AV system could be made to work, GW's various iterations never really did.

Agreed. Before Hull Points, Vehicle Damage was crazy difficult, ranging from useless to obscenely over-powered, and that could be with a Lascannon. That Lascannon, Railgun, or Krak Missile was just as likely to make them just not shoot the next turn as it was to blow them up!

With Hull Points, it went a little too far the other way. Glancing taking away Hull Points was technically fine, except that they were stingy with those Hull Points, making the entire concept useless because Vehicles were now too fragile. Reversing how Glancing and Penetrating worked (Glance Rolled on table, with highest losing Hull point; Penetrating would lose Hull Point and Roll on table with highest Exploding) would probably have worked better at the provided Hull Points (though, still may have needed to add 1-3 depending on the Vehicle), or upping those Hull Points up to at least MC levels if not would have worked better. Monoliths and Land Raiders just needing only 4 Glances to kill when a Rhino took 3? Please.

 Grimtuff wrote:
I prefer the wounds system and the degrading profile with two caveats. I’d prefer it to be variable or something based on facing simply to add some depth and also, though this is more a byproduct of the streamlined wounding chart is simply some weapons should not be able to hurt certain things. A lasgun should have ZERO chance of harming any tank in the game, let alone a Land Raider.

It makes the game more tactical and speeds it up. No more need to roll a literal bucketful of dice in the hope you’ll remove a couple of wounds from that Russ.

I agree with this. I prefer the wound system for all models and the degrading damage chart represents bigger models/vehicles becoming less effective as they are damage nicely.

I would really like to see them add an extra paragraph to the wound section in the main rules something along the lines of "If the model being attacked is a VEHICLE, and it's Toughness value is double the attackers Strength, apply a -1 to wound"

 Overread wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

ccs wrote:
Either works for me.

What doesn't is the lack of vehicle fire arcs.

the problem with vehicle fire arcs is the model designers don't really think beyond "THIS LOOKS KEWL!" so some models tend to get fire arcs that aren't really that hot. The Land raider is exhibit A in that regard

Aye its a very solid thought. Esp when you've vehicles that don't have their primary weapons on a turret. There's a good few Siege style tanks in the game which don't have their weapon on a turret. Now that's fine for a game of Epic or other 6mm or similar scale game because they would typically be far back from the front lints. However in 40K they aren't. They can be right up close to the front lines so they have to do a lot more moving side to side to keep things in range.

IT also takes us back to the unfair state of vehicles vs things like demon engines and tyranids which traditionally had no fire arcs and yet were, for power and points, pretty much equivalent to vehicles.

You can deal with that quite easy just giving the tank as a whole fire arcs for each weapon, Land raider can fire its side weapons to the left and right front arc. With the little turret the full front arc. Same with the seige tanks, regardles or how far the weapons can move on the model. Turrets themselves could be given a small points cost as well if they prove usable enough over none turret weapons.

Would add a lot to how the battlefield plays out as well i feel.

The old way, at least for shooting. It's nonsense to look at something like an impulser and imagine bringing all of those guns to bear on a single target, and I never found firing arcs to be complicated.
I could do with the toughness and wounds if they didn't make the wounding chart too damn easy. I don't care how many sixes you roll a tank should be bolter proof.

Multi-wound & high toughness for vehicles can go to hell.

3rd Ed. had it right, with the exception of the Wraithlord.

"tactical depth" of vehicle facing+firing arcs is an illusion. Just a bookkeeping mundane mechanic.

ccs wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

the problem with vehicle fire arcs is the model designers don't really think beyond "THIS LOOKS KEWL!" so some models tend to get fire arcs that aren't really that hot. The Land raider is exhibit A in that regard

You don't like the land raider design?? Go back in time to 1915/16 & bitch at the WWI Brits. They're the ones who designed their tanks with side arc firing sponsons.

Yeah, for the first tank ever built.

And basically every tank built thereafter replaced side-sponson guns with either a turret or a fixed forward-mounted gun.

One might think that warriors in the 41st millennium would have at least based their tank on the WW2 model.

 Just Tony wrote:
3rd Ed. had it right, with the exception of the Wraithlord.

In 3rd edition vehicles were appropriately resilient due to the average volume of fire of the armies which was basically like 25% of the current one. 5-6 (or 10-15 if you hit on 5s like orks) anti tank shots were tipycally enough in a 1500 points TAC list.

But that's it, I also would love shooting to be way less efficient but that has nothing to do with the "armour facings vs wounds" matter.

ccs wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

ccs wrote:
Either works for me.

What doesn't is the lack of vehicle fire arcs.

the problem with vehicle fire arcs is the model designers don't really think beyond "THIS LOOKS KEWL!" so some models tend to get fire arcs that aren't really that hot. The Land raider is exhibit A in that regard

You don't like the land raider design?? Go back in time to 1915/16 & bitch at the WWI Brits. They're the ones who designed their tanks with side arc firing sponsons.

*Laughs in Lincoln

It was all a ruse. We set up GW a century ago to have terrible Land Raiders by inventing the tank. That’s some 4d chess right there.

Current system is better.
As for the durability complaints: I lost the vast majority of my 5th-7th edition battlewagons to scatter lasers, multi-lasers, assault- and autocannons - not going to happen in 8th.
And I'm glad about no longer having an argument every other game whether the deff rolla counted for determining the front arc or not, plus all those grot guns on the planes which couldn't even shoot other planes because they point upward for some reason.

AV was better than wounds because it correctly modelled the likelihood of tanks getting blown up in the first shot they take, as is realistic. Especially since the more we advance, the less useful armour becomes. Modern tanks are paper because we know their only protection is firing first.

Tanks don't have magical pockets for enemy rounds that explode when full.

Tanks should be easy to blow up with dedicated anti-tank weaponry and cheaper/ more spammable as a result.

LoftyS wrote:
AV was better than wounds because it correctly modelled the likelihood of tanks getting blown up in the first shot they take, as is realistic. Especially since the more we advance, the less useful armour becomes. Modern tanks are paper because we know their only protection is firing first.

Tanks don't have magical pockets for enemy rounds that explode when full.

Metla/lascannon/bright lance/dark lance hits landraider and destroys it. Same weapon hits nob on warbike, he loses one wound and he proceeds to ride on unhindered, as is "realistic".

Old vehicle rules had as much to do with realism as the current ones do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LoftyS wrote:
Tanks should be easy to blow up with dedicated anti-tank weaponry and cheaper/ more spammable as a result.

That's the case right now though. Most tanks die lie flies to anti-tank fire.

A mix of the two would be awesome

I thought the armour facing rules were all right and immersive. However I think it was under-used. Stuff like carnifexes and riptides should also have had those rules. I dont see why a monster could not be instakilled by a melta in the heart, or stunned by a lasblast...
If those rules ever returned I dont think there should be other rulses for monsterous creatures or bipedal robots.

 Emicrania wrote:
A mix of the two would be awesome

Armor facings could affect saves. Seems like a nice compromise

Yoyoyo wrote:

 Emicrania wrote:
A mix of the two would be awesome

Armor facings could affect saves. Seems like a nice compromise

That would actually make quite a bit of sense.
Yet, what do if you fully negate armour saves? Bonus damage?

I always thought that I'd be nice if negative armor would increase damage. Then again, that would make invulnerable saves even more important.

 Jidmah wrote:
I always thought that I'd be nice if negative armor would increase damage. Then again, that would make invulnerable saves even more important.

TBF, most invulnerable saves are not an issue until they hit the magic 4+ imo.
That is the point where high AT weaponry becomes useless against a target due to actually having 0 benefit for the higher price for the AP comparatively to Medium strength low ap weapons and or small guns.

Also GW throwing out invulnerables like candy, literally in EVERY list, adds to that imo.

i'd like to see a system where invulnerables add to saves instead if AP comes into play, meaning ap-1 would make a terminator go to 3+ sv which then would go down to 2+ again. This would be a somewhat ok compromise probaby?

Or inversely. Leave armour saves as it is, but make invuls have a facing similar to the old way Knight Ion Shields worked, letting people work for that better save / work around that better save through positioning.

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Or inversely. Leave armour saves as it is, but make invuls have a facing similar to the old way Knight Ion Shields worked, letting people work for that better save / work around that better save through positioning.

That'd be a terrible system on infantry though...

 Jidmah wrote:

LoftyS wrote:
AV was better than wounds because it correctly modelled the likelihood of tanks getting blown up in the first shot they take, as is realistic. Especially since the more we advance, the less useful armour becomes. Modern tanks are paper because we know their only protection is firing first.

Tanks don't have magical pockets for enemy rounds that explode when full.

Metla/lascannon/bright lance/dark lance hits landraider and destroys it. Same weapon hits nob on warbike, he loses one wound and he proceeds to ride on unhindered, as is "realistic".

Old vehicle rules had as much to do with realism as the current ones do.

Or you take the good from both. D6 damage from a Lascannon, but also the Pen table.

So if a Lascannon hits a LandRaider, it's still got a chance to OHK it (1/36 in 7th).

But a Lascannon hitting a Biker is much more likely to kill it (5/9 in 8th).

Would of preferred if vehicles had their AV system but also armor saves. General rule of 4+ armor for skimmers/flyers/rear armor (so stuff like krak grenades in melee could still be effective). 3+ saves for most of your ground vehicles and walkers with 2+ being reserved for special cases like Land Raiders. Would make it so most proper anti vehicle weapons wouldn't be impacted by the change (melta gonna melta regardless of armor) but it would hurt those high strength + weak AP weapons (scatter lasers, Tesla, etc) or stuff that has special hull points stripping abilities like gauss.

Bharring wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

LoftyS wrote:
AV was better than wounds because it correctly modelled the likelihood of tanks getting blown up in the first shot they take, as is realistic. Especially since the more we advance, the less useful armour becomes. Modern tanks are paper because we know their only protection is firing first.

Tanks don't have magical pockets for enemy rounds that explode when full.

Metla/lascannon/bright lance/dark lance hits landraider and destroys it. Same weapon hits nob on warbike, he loses one wound and he proceeds to ride on unhindered, as is "realistic".

Old vehicle rules had as much to do with realism as the current ones do.

Or you take the good from both. D6 damage from a Lascannon, but also the Pen table.

So if a Lascannon hits a LandRaider, it's still got a chance to OHK it (1/36 in 7th).

But a Lascannon hitting a Biker is much more likely to kill it (5/9 in 8th).

7th has sufficiently proven that providing two alternative ways to kill vehicles is very bad.

Bharring wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

LoftyS wrote:
AV was better than wounds because it correctly modelled the likelihood of tanks getting blown up in the first shot they take, as is realistic. Especially since the more we advance, the less useful armour becomes. Modern tanks are paper because we know their only protection is firing first.

Tanks don't have magical pockets for enemy rounds that explode when full.

Metla/lascannon/bright lance/dark lance hits landraider and destroys it. Same weapon hits nob on warbike, he loses one wound and he proceeds to ride on unhindered, as is "realistic".

Old vehicle rules had as much to do with realism as the current ones do.

Or you take the good from both. D6 damage from a Lascannon, but also the Pen table.

So if a Lascannon hits a LandRaider, it's still got a chance to OHK it (1/36 in 7th).

But a Lascannon hitting a Biker is much more likely to kill it (5/9 in 8th).

One hit kill on vehicles is great for narrative games. Terrible for everything else. It isn't fun for the person losing the vehicle and it doesn't really enhance the game for you, because you got a lucky roll.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Bharring wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

LoftyS wrote:
AV was better than wounds because it correctly modelled the likelihood of tanks getting blown up in the first shot they take, as is realistic. Especially since the more we advance, the less useful armour becomes. Modern tanks are paper because we know their only protection is firing first.

Tanks don't have magical pockets for enemy rounds that explode when full.

Metla/lascannon/bright lance/dark lance hits landraider and destroys it. Same weapon hits nob on warbike, he loses one wound and he proceeds to ride on unhindered, as is "realistic".

Old vehicle rules had as much to do with realism as the current ones do.

Or you take the good from both. D6 damage from a Lascannon, but also the Pen table.

So if a Lascannon hits a LandRaider, it's still got a chance to OHK it (1/36 in 7th).

But a Lascannon hitting a Biker is much more likely to kill it (5/9 in 8th).

One hit kill on vehicles is great for narrative games. Terrible for everything else. It isn't fun for the person losing the vehicle and it doesn't really enhance the game for you, because you got a lucky roll.

TBF with a post knight meta, you don't really last any longer on the table with the average vehicle aswell.

I thik a hybrid solution would be the best way. Re-introduce facings but with some sort of modifier, keep wounds. Maybe introduce a "true" 1+ save so that AP0 weapons can't hurt vehicles and even AP-1/-2 have a harder time.

Also, no Invulnerables for Vehicles (a tiny few exceptions of course)

Not Online!!! wrote:
TBF with a post knight meta, you don't really last any longer on the table with the average vehicle aswell.

I haven't lost four battlewagons before they moved in 8th yet, and even against haywire spam, losing more than one can already be considered bad luck.
In previous editions, I had multiple games where I lost all four before they moved, sometimes in addition to some trukks and buggies. Losing two was pretty much to be expected.

 Jidmah wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
TBF with a post knight meta, you don't really last any longer on the table with the average vehicle aswell.

I haven't lost four battlewagons before they moved in 8th yet, and even against haywire spam, losing more than one can already be considered bad luck.
In previous editions, I had multiple games where I lost all four before they moved, sometimes in addition to some trukks and buggies. Losing two was pretty much to be expected.

So just i am that unlucky then?

It was disappointing to see vehicles and monsters merge together so much, vehicles were and should remain subpar to monsters in terms of agility. Vehicles are (in general) faster and often equipped with an arsenal of higher grade ranged and melee weapon, while monsters are more flexible and agile (even the big fatties)

I don't mind replacing the armor system with T and wounds, though.

A lot of issues in the previous edition was caused by GW insisting on releasing robotic walkers for multiple factions and giving them monster rules, while the actual monsters were minced meat (unless they could fly).

Not Online!!! wrote:

TBF with a post knight meta, you don't really last any longer on the table with the average vehicle aswell.

Not so far for me. Marines have jack gak for heavy weapons at range lately. T8 is a bear for them to get through and Vindicators haven't been terrible at putting holes in Centurions.

Waaaghbert wrote:
Also, no Invulnerables for Vehicles (a tiny few exceptions of course)

Second this. All vehicles with and invulnerable save should just get additional wounds according to their invul save and done:
4++ = +100%
5++ = +50%
6++ = +33%

 Jidmah wrote:

Waaaghbert wrote:
Also, no Invulnerables for Vehicles (a tiny few exceptions of course)

Second this. All vehicles with and invulnerable save should just get additional wounds according to their invul save and done:
4++ = +100%
5++ = +50%
6++ = +33%

5++ = 50% more wounds.
I don't think you want defielers with that wound count running around lad.

I think it's the other way, that anti-tank weapons are really effective against both infantry and vehicles/monstrous creatures, while the volume of anti-infantry weapons makes the best ones against infantry also effective against vehicles.

In Epic Armageddon you had Anti-Infantry weapons which could only remove Infantry and Light Vehicle models, Anti-Tank weapons would could only remove Armoured Vehicles (including Monstrous Creatures) and knock points off War Engines, and and Anti-Aircraft which let you shoot at Flyers. There were also Macro Weapons, which let you mash any units and deny them saves (unless they had the Reinforced Armour trait) to boot.

This didn't leave stuff with AT completely vulnerable to Armoured Vehicles, as they could do an Engage move and engage the Armoured Vehicle detachment using their Close Combat (CC) and Firefight (FF) values, but it did serve to make list-building interesting in that you needed a mix of weapons. It also meant that you didn't need to make vehicles like really big infantry.

Not Online!!! wrote:
I don't think you want defielers with that wound count running around lad.

Yes I do. Maybe then their regeneration would at least be used once per game.

 Jidmah wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
I don't think you want defielers with that wound count running around lad.

Yes I do. Maybe then their regeneration would at least be used once per game.

That is actually a valid point.

Actually that might make a dakka daemonengine castle work.


I think i'd agree in hindsight with that.

 Jidmah wrote:

LoftyS wrote:
AV was better than wounds because it correctly modelled the likelihood of tanks getting blown up in the first shot they take, as is realistic. Especially since the more we advance, the less useful armour becomes. Modern tanks are paper because we know their only protection is firing first.

Tanks don't have magical pockets for enemy rounds that explode when full.

Metla/lascannon/bright lance/dark lance hits landraider and destroys it. Same weapon hits nob on warbike, he loses one wound and he proceeds to ride on unhindered, as is "realistic".

We had instant death under those very rules. Nob on Warbike was T5 and would be instantly killed by a railgun.

For the most part it worked fine. The only dumb thing was Crisis Suit instant death to Missile Launchers, zero sense was made that day. They should never have been T4(5), nor should Stealth Suits have been T3(4) - just straight T5 and T4 respectively.

New system is far superiour for me. Firing at an Eldar vehicle was pure hell, so many debates over the sides.

It also helps with estimating the survivability of vehicles when building lists since you don't have to factor in something as nebulous as cover.

I also like the fact that any unit can theoretically hurt a vehicle now if it rolls lucky enough. Sometimes before a 14/14/14 vehicle would be literally invulnerable if the opponent's anti-armour weapons got nuked with a lucky roll.

 Priestess_Argent wrote:
New system is far superiour for me. Firing at an Eldar vehicle was pure hell, so many debates over the sides.

Telling Front from Side on a CWE or Harlie vehicle could be a pain, but rear was always obvious. But, fortunately, front/side didn't matter - they had the same AVs.

DE vehicles weren't hard either, but at 10/10/10 didn't matter.

Where were you having trouble with Eldar facings?

It also helps with estimating the survivability of vehicles when building lists since you don't have to factor in something as nebulous as cover.

Conversely, it also guts impact of something as critical as cover/LOS.

I also like the fact that any unit can theoretically hurt a vehicle now if it rolls lucky enough. Sometimes before a 14/14/14 vehicle would be literally invulnerable if the opponent's anti-armour weapons got nuked with a lucky roll.

I wouldn't agree. I don't like that a Lasgun can actually hurt a Land Raider. And a Plasma Gun can threaten anything in the game. In 7th, taking Plasma to torch a Land Raider wasn't just stupid, it was actually impossible.

Most anti-infantry (anti-GEQ or -MEQ/TEQ) weapons simply didn't have the S to be a big threat to moderate/heavy armor. Some of the stronger ones could somewhat threaten lighter armor, but it forced more variation between "This is for hunting tanks" and "This is for mowing guys down".

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
I don't think you want defielers with that wound count running around lad.

Yes I do. Maybe then their regeneration would at least be used once per game.

That is actually a valid point.

Actually that might make a dakka daemonengine castle work.


I think i'd agree in hindsight with that.

Except you guys just made infantry totally un-viable and vehicles that didn't have invulnerable saves worthless.

Previously it took 13.6 lascannon shots to kill a defiler. Under this system it would take 16.2.
Close range multi-melta would be 10.5 and 10.5, so literally no benefit other than totally removing the agency of the other player.

Nurglitch wrote:
I think it's the other way, that anti-tank weapons are really effective against both infantry and vehicles/monstrous creatures, while the volume of anti-infantry weapons makes the best ones against infantry also effective against vehicles.

In Epic Armageddon you had Anti-Infantry weapons which could only remove Infantry and Light Vehicle models, Anti-Tank weapons would could only remove Armoured Vehicles (including Monstrous Creatures) and knock points off War Engines, and and Anti-Aircraft which let you shoot at Flyers. There were also Macro Weapons, which let you mash any units and deny them saves (unless they had the Reinforced Armour trait) to boot.

This didn't leave stuff with AT completely vulnerable to Armoured Vehicles, as they could do an Engage move and engage the Armoured Vehicle detachment using their Close Combat (CC) and Firefight (FF) values, but it did serve to make list-building interesting in that you needed a mix of weapons. It also meant that you didn't need to make vehicles like really big infantry.

This times 1000.

There's not really "Anti Infantry" and "Anti Tank" weapons anymore. Some weapons have an edge against one or the other, but a weapon that's good against one is, far too often these days, good against the other.

We had some of that in 7th with things like ScatterLasers in large numbers - good against infantry and light weapons. But they were the exception, and were enough of an outlier they were obviously OP.

If you needed to take a MeltaGun or Lascannon to be a threat against a real tank, but you need to take a Flamer or Heavy Bolter to be a real threat to Ork Boyz, you had real, compelling, difficult choices to make. If you can just take a Plasma Gun or Intercessor or Reaper and eat both easily, not so much.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
I don't think you want defielers with that wound count running around lad.

Yes I do. Maybe then their regeneration would at least be used once per game.

That is actually a valid point.

Actually that might make a dakka daemonengine castle work.


I think i'd agree in hindsight with that.

Except you guys just made infantry totally un-viable and vehicles that didn't have invulnerable saves worthless.

Previously it took 13.6 lascannon shots to kill a defiler. Under this system it would take 16.2.
Close range multi-melta would be 10.5 and 10.5, so literally no benefit other than totally removing the agency of the other player.

oh noes, the melta get's a niche back....

LoftyS wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

LoftyS wrote:
AV was better than wounds because it correctly modelled the likelihood of tanks getting blown up in the first shot they take, as is realistic. Especially since the more we advance, the less useful armour becomes. Modern tanks are paper because we know their only protection is firing first.

Tanks don't have magical pockets for enemy rounds that explode when full.

Metla/lascannon/bright lance/dark lance hits landraider and destroys it. Same weapon hits nob on warbike, he loses one wound and he proceeds to ride on unhindered, as is "realistic".

We had instant death under those very rules. Nob on Warbike was T5 and would be instantly killed by a railgun.

Nice goalpost there. Would you mind not moving it?

For the most part it worked fine. The only dumb thing was Crisis Suit instant death to Missile Launchers, zero sense was made that day. They should never have been T4(5), nor should Stealth Suits have been T3(4) - just straight T5 and T4 respectively.

So you are saying a tau guy in thin armor never dying to a single missile is fine, while a massive tank like the LBRT should be instantly destroyed? Ok.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
so literally no benefit other than totally removing the agency of the other player.

I was not aware that rolling a dice without any decision making or possible interactions counts as "agency".

 Jidmah wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
so literally no benefit other than totally removing the agency of the other player.

I was not aware that rolling a dice without any decision making or possible interactions counts as "agency".

The "I take hyper-specialized antiarmor weapons designed to threaten the toughest armored vehicles out there to counter your supertough heavily armored super-vehicle" is some of the agency lost. Or the "I shoot you from behind, because I'm a sneaky git like that, so it's easier to smoke your tank" is some of the agency lost.

Crazy idea, but what if a certain keyword or two reduced the Dmg of a weapon?

Say, if they have the Keyword "Tank", then Dmg per Hit is -1. This could be applied to a Predator, Defiler, or Carnifex to represent the ability to shrug off damage, requiring those multi-damage weapons like Melta and Lascannon to do anything where a Heavy Bolter wouldn't.

I wouldn't want to make it for all Vehicles, mainly because certain Vehicles really are too fragile to be affected by this, and some Monstrous Creatures really are designed to be quite tanky.

On the other hand, once you open the can of worms for reducing Dmg, who knows where the developers would take it...

Vehicles getting armour saves back was good, not sure why invented a system where they could go above 10 in stats like toughness and then don't bother?

All people looking for complex and convoluted rules to make tanks and heavy monsters more strong. Invulnerables, reductions of damage, FNP, ignore ap...


All of that is just worthless when you can just give all of them more wounds. Remove invulnerables for most vehicles, with the exception with some of those light vehicles with not many wounds like eldar vehiclers or stuff like that, and just give them more wounds.

If d6 weapons are not enough you could give the minimun damage 3 and BAM. Anti infantry weapons are no more usefull because removing two wounds of a 20 wound rhino with your heavy bolter is not as good of an investment as removing 2 wounds of a 10 wound rhino.

And yeah anti tank weapons would take more shoots to kill tanks that they do now but... isn't that one of the problems? That vehicles are popping out like pop corn?

More wounds = The simpler and best solution to both problems of anti infantry weapons killing tanks and tanks being too fragile.

Agreed with just giving vehicles more wounds, if they need it.

 Galas wrote:
All people looking for complex and convoluted rules to make tanks and heavy monsters more strong. Invulnerables, reductions of damage, FNP, ignore ap...


All of that is just worthless when you can just give all of them more wounds. Remove invulnerables for most vehicles, with the exception with some of those light vehicles with not many wounds like eldar vehiclers or stuff like that, and just give them more wounds.

If d6 weapons are not enough you could give the minimun damage 3 and BAM. Anti infantry weapons are no more usefull because removing two wounds of a 20 wound rhino with your heavy bolter is not as good of an investment as removing 2 wounds of a 10 wound rhino.

And yeah anti tank weapons would take more shoots to kill tanks that they do now but... isn't that one of the problems? That vehicles are popping out like pop corn?

More wounds = The simpler and best solution to both problems of anti infantry weapons killing tanks and tanks being too fragile.

1. Having to book keep a bunch of D10s or D20s on every vehicle is clunky.
2. If feels wrong as they feel like rolling meatboxes soaking wounds instead of the feeling of being impervious to small arms but at risk to the heavy hitting weapons. Also makes getting damage through more meaningful than taking 3 wounds off a 28 wound model.

Also, some of us who want Armor Facings back aren't looking to make vehicles "stronger" or "weaker" - we're looking for more impactful positioning/facing.

..kinda want facings with different t scores.

Like the slow degeneration of vehicles, so I guess I'd like expanded previous edition damage charts.

 Vankraken wrote:

 Galas wrote:
All people looking for complex and convoluted rules to make tanks and heavy monsters more strong. Invulnerables, reductions of damage, FNP, ignore ap...


All of that is just worthless when you can just give all of them more wounds. Remove invulnerables for most vehicles, with the exception with some of those light vehicles with not many wounds like eldar vehiclers or stuff like that, and just give them more wounds.

If d6 weapons are not enough you could give the minimun damage 3 and BAM. Anti infantry weapons are no more usefull because removing two wounds of a 20 wound rhino with your heavy bolter is not as good of an investment as removing 2 wounds of a 10 wound rhino.

And yeah anti tank weapons would take more shoots to kill tanks that they do now but... isn't that one of the problems? That vehicles are popping out like pop corn?

More wounds = The simpler and best solution to both problems of anti infantry weapons killing tanks and tanks being too fragile.

1. Having to book keep a bunch of D10s or D20s on every vehicle is clunky.
2. If feels wrong as they feel like rolling meatboxes soaking wounds instead of the feeling of being impervious to small arms but at risk to the heavy hitting weapons. Also makes getting damage through more meaningful than taking 3 wounds off a 28 wound model.

Keeping track of the wounds in your big models wouldn't be that much different than it is now, TBH.
And with 2 thats exactly what more wounds would accomplish. Firing with small arms at a vehicle and scrapping 2 wounds means nothing. A couple lass cannon shots that take out 12 damage is another thing. I know you like the old system, but as it is obvious in this new system theres a ton of people that feel tanks aren't resilient enough. Invulnerable saves, FNP to vehicles, minus damage habilities, etc... all of that are inferior to just make things have more wounds. All of them have their own problems, more wounds has none.

Vehicles just need one thing in this edition: firepower to be reduced by 50% (if not more) for every army. Removing re-rolls and stratagems that allow something firing twice would be a great start.

I can agree with that. You only need to play or see battle reports online. Rerrolls are so... they make things so reliable.

And I know failling to hit sucks. When I stop playing my custodes, everything in the army hitting on 2+ normally rerolling 1's, to play my Tau's, it feels like I can't do please don't bypass the language filter like this. Reds8n But thats how the game should be played. If not things are too reliable and too damaging.

Part of D&D, and later 40k, to me is that the dice were the final, infallible truth. That 1 you rolled is a 1. No takebacks. No savescums. You rolled a 1.

It kinda sucked when you saw someone lose their entire Sternguard squad when their LR blew up. That was a lot of 1s. But that's super rare (we can run numbers if we really care). We play so much, we see super rare things happen - rule of large numbers and all that.

But getting into the dice being the arbiters of fortune requires accepting that sometimes they're out to kill us. Sometimes it's a 1. Once you've rolled, there's nothing you can do. It provided meaning. Closure. Fairness.

People love it when dice go their way. But they want a doover when it doesn't. So people got their doovers. Yes, you can reroll that 1. But so can I.

And now the dice are just an ineffective speedbump. They don't mean anything, because I can try again.

I hate rerolls.

Bharring wrote:
Part of D&D, and later 40k, to me is that the dice were the final, infallible truth. That 1 you rolled is a 1. No takebacks. No savescums. You rolled a 1.

It kinda sucked when you saw someone lose their entire Sternguard squad when their LR blew up. That was a lot of 1s. But that's super rare (we can run numbers if we really care). We play so much, we see super rare things happen - rule of large numbers and all that.

But getting into the dice being the arbiters of fortune requires accepting that sometimes they're out to kill us. Sometimes it's a 1. Once you've rolled, there's nothing you can do. It provided meaning. Closure. Fairness.

People love it when dice go their way. But they want a doover when it doesn't. So people got their doovers. Yes, you can reroll that 1. But so can I.

And now the dice are just an ineffective speedbump. They don't mean anything, because I can try again.

I hate rerolls.

Rerolls are definitely too prevailent, but your example is aweful. Sure, loosing a full squad of Marines was unlikely when a vehicle blew up and sucked when it happend, but those of us that played armies that relied on open topped vehicles tended to have infantry without T4, 3+ and would lose 1/2 the squad or more when the vehicle inevitably blew up. There was nothing fun about that, at all.

The old vehicle rules were complete and utter trash and can burn in hell as far as I'm concerned, bringing them back in any capacity would be aweful for the game.

Blackie wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
3rd Ed. had it right, with the exception of the Wraithlord.

In 3rd edition vehicles were appropriately resilient due to the average volume of fire of the armies which was basically like 25% of the current one. 5-6 (or 10-15 if you hit on 5s like orks) anti tank shots were tipycally enough in a 1500 points TAC list.

But that's it, I also would love shooting to be way less efficient but that has nothing to do with the "armour facings vs wounds" matter.

Personally, it's one of the many reasons I simply went back to 3rd. Ed. Currently I have a few opponents to choose from, so it's still a viable alternative.

I preferred the AV chart, personally. Mashing Monstrous Creatures and Vehicles together always felt a little weird to me.

During 4th/5th, the environment was very different to what it is today. Tau were new, there were no riptides, and the only monstrous creature that wasn't vulnerable to even S4 weapons was the Wraithlord, whereas most vehicles had at least one AV11 side which made them practically immune to small arms fire. Vehicles were much faster than MC's and typically carried more firepower, and skimmers were hellaciously difficult to deal with. Any those super durable MC's? Typically did not have invul saves and had in the range of four wounds, so they tended to be around the same durability as a minimum terminator squad, and because of the FoC (which I also dearly miss), you'd be looking at no more than 8 or 9 with very little else on the board. Did it feel bad when an expensive vehicle was one shot? Sure, it did, especially in the unlikely scenario your monolith took a turbo round and blew up. But it also felt bad having to walk MC's up the table and soak up tons of fire for three turns before they were in effective range to do anything.

The problem with returning to the AV/damage chart/facing rules is that GW has made anti tank ranged weaponry far, far too spammable and mobile. It would take a new edition just to fix the mess.

I'm probably being nostalgic for those days, but the game felt overall more balanced if individual pieces were over or undertuned. If it's any consolation, GW always doted on space marines at that point too.

If we're going to keep wounds, I'd like to see vehicle armor saves move to 2d6. And then I'd like to see GW actually charge for significant amounts of AP, because right now 25 points of lascannon can kill whole lot more than that in most cases.