Hi everyone

I was thinking about vehicles and how they could make more impact on the table. What if they had square bases? This would be a cool modeling opportunity like smashing trees aside and it could make it easier to determine what armour side the opponent is hitting. Iv heard people didn’t like different armor faces because it caused arguments but isn’t that more a lack of clear rules. Different side and rear armor values opens up the design space and brings more value to deployment options. Also it would somewhat fix the Rogel dorn hole problem. What do you think??

As you can tell from my signature, I'm not a fan of armor value/facings.

Iv heard people didn’t like different armor faces because it caused arguments but isn’t that more a lack of clear rules.

Depends on what you mean by "rules." The point of confusion was where exactly one side of a vehicle ended and the next began. It's usually pretty easy to figure out with imperial vheicles because they're mostly just rectangles with treads. But figuring out the intended rear/side armor of a wave serpent or devilfish is trickier. Reasonable people can come to different conclusions about where the rear armor "should" be.

Putting vehicles on rectangular bases would resolve a lot of that ambiguity, albeit at the cost of making everywhere rebase their vehicles.

Theoretically, if you gave vehicles rectangular bases and brought back Front/Side/Rear armor (represented as Toughness values presumably), then you'd still have a little weirdness to deal with.

For starters, the current to-wound chart means that lowering the Toughness of a side by, for example, 1 wouldn't actually make a difference for a lot of weapons. For instance, making a vehicle's side armor T8 instead of T9 wouldn't matter for any weapons with a strength value of 5-7. Compare this to the old system where Armor Penetration rolls were 1d6 + Strength vs ArmorValue, meaning that every point of AV mattered for any weapon that could possibly hurt the vehicle (except something like a hammerhead railgun shooting at something like a dark eldar raider).

So you might be tempted to lower Toughness by 2 points at a time, but then you might be opening yourself up to being more vulnerable to lower strength weapons than you intended.

Another thing with armor facings was that, in practice, they mostly didn't matter. At least, not against shooting. Most vehicles you saw on the table had the same Front and Side armor. So positioning only really mattered if you got directly behind the target. And the thing with that is that you could usually just point your tank's butt towards some impassible terrain or the board edge to ensure this never happened.

So really, you were only getting rear AV if you:
* Deepstruck (Deepstriked?)
* Were in melee (this was basically a way to give counterplay against potentially unkillable vehicles)
* Maaaaybe if the vehicle in question was a transport that had just dropped off a squad.

In theory, vehicles were encouraged to leave their weaker armor more exposed by their weapons' firing arcs requiring them to reposition. But this didn't make a huge difference in my experience, and reintroducing weapon arcs has its own complications.

I actually like the *idea* of vehicles having weak points, but it's probably better suited for something closer to Combat Patrol's size (smaller game = more space for complexity with individual units) or for a game with a smaller scale that focuses specifically on vehicle fights and/or units rather than dealing with individual models.

I also long for vehicle facings but understand the difficulties with the varied shapes of xenos craft. A more thorough designer would have included a top-down schematic on each datasheet.
A simple alternative is to just designate rear armor as the 90° arc opposite the front. And symmetrical vehicles like the monolith don't have a rear.

If I were to houserule it in, I would have attacking the rear grant a pip of AP on the save throw instead of messing with the wound roll.

Having side armor brings a lot more tactical thought to the game. I can't imagine playing a game where there is no value to taking a rear shot on a tank.

One way to resolve it vs T is to give +1 S to flank shots and +2 S to rear.

Put vehicles on basis with clearly marked arcs on it and then we can do facings in a way that eliminates argumentation.

What's that?

You think vehicles on bases look gross?

OK, no solid game mechanics for you.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:
Having side armor brings a lot more tactical thought to the game. I can't imagine playing a game where there is no value to taking a rear shot on a tank.

One way to resolve it vs T is to give +1 S to flank shots and +2 S to rear.

What about melee?

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:
Having side armor brings a lot more tactical thought to the game.

Do you feel it brought a lot of tactical thought in previous editions of 40k? In my experience, rear armor shots were a thing that happened when someone landed a good deepstrike or when your transport got close to the enemy lines. In either case, it wasn't exactly a matter of clever tactics. Deepstriking to go after rear armor was a calculated risk (that could be represented as a strat or ability in 10th), and walking a couple inches forward to shoot the enemy rhino in the butt was a no-brainer.

One way to resolve it vs T is to give +1 S to flank shots and +2 S to rear.

Well, a couple of things there:

* Would this apply to vehicles that historically had the same Front and Side armor? This was most vehicles in the game, for context.
* This would mean that S5 weapons like scatter lasers and heavy bolters would not benefit from this rule at all against most vehicles.
* Lasguns and bolters on the other hand would now be seeing 50% or 100% increases in the number of successful wounds they put out. So this rule potentially diminishes the effectiveness of dedicated anti-tank relative to small arms fire.
* Something like plasma which typically has greater range than melta would more easily be able to get at least a +1 further damaging melta's limited 10th edition niche.
* As JNA pointed out, what about melee? Are all attacks in melee going against rear armor? Strength 5 hormagaunts?
* In the past, people would just point their butts towards table edges or BLOS terrain. What would prevent that from being the case here?

Instead of bringing back armor facings, I think we might get more bang for our buck out of a good crossfire mechanic. That would encourage tactical positioning with all units; not just with tanks and tank hunters. It would (theoretically) capture that notion that the tank was flanked and thus couldn't protect itself by pointing its butt away from the attackers. Crossfire also has a lot of potential to interact with interesting unit abilities, wargear, etc.

Just give certain models a three-piece T stat, I.E. under the T in their profile it would read 7/7/5 to signify different toughnesses by facing (front/side/rear). If theres only one number, its the same Toughness all around.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
Instead of bringing back armor facings, I think we might get more bang for our buck out of a good crossfire mechanic. That would encourage tactical positioning with all units; not just with tanks and tank hunters. It would (theoretically) capture that notion that the tank was flanked and thus couldn't protect itself by pointing its butt away from the attackers. Crossfire also has a lot of potential to interact with interesting unit abilities, wargear, etc.

On one hand, this means flanking a tank alone would have no benefit. On the other, it would completely bypass any need to determine or measure facings.

I heard 40k has or had a crossfire ability or rule, for Genestealer Cults? How does it actually work?
If it involves getting two of your units on either side of an enemy in a single turn, I don't think it would work in an alternating activation system like Apocalypse since my activated unit or detachment needs to stay in coherency.

 Dominar_Jameson_V wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:
Instead of bringing back armor facings, I think we might get more bang for our buck out of a good crossfire mechanic. That would encourage tactical positioning with all units; not just with tanks and tank hunters. It would (theoretically) capture that notion that the tank was flanked and thus couldn't protect itself by pointing its butt away from the attackers. Crossfire also has a lot of potential to interact with interesting unit abilities, wargear, etc.

On one hand, this means flanking a tank alone would have no benefit. On the other, it would completely bypass any need to determine or measure facings.

I heard 40k has or had a crossfire ability or rule, for Genestealer Cults? How does it actually work?
If it involves getting two of your units on either side of an enemy in a single turn, I don't think it would work in an alternating activation system like Apocalypse...

It was in 9th Edition-no longer exists in 10th.

in the interests of simplicity, you can go with 2 arcs, front and everything else.

draw a line across the front of the vehicle like this:

===== | draw fire from this side of the line is front
===== |

Any other direction is rear.

Get +1S to rear shots.

 Hellebore wrote:
in the interests of simplicity, you can go with 2 arcs, front and everything else.

That's fine.

The notion is that almost all armored vehicles are more vulnerable from the rear - and yes, this applies to melee attacks. Hit a tank on the glacis with a hammer and not much will happen. Hit it in the exhaust or vent covers, and it's more profitable.

Vehicles with all-round armor just get an indication to that effect.

It's both realistic and reflects the tactical reality that flank shots are highly desireable.

Messing around with AP is probably better than Strength modifiers.

 Tyran wrote:
Messing around with AP is probably better than Strength modifiers.

Not even going to argue with that. I don't play 10th, don't know the mechanics, just trying to support the OP in principle.

However that is accomplished, I'm fine with it.

 Tyran wrote:
Messing around with AP is probably better than Strength modifiers.

Seconded. Each point of AP will always be useful until the save is impossible to make or you run into an invuln save. Boosting strength will have a bunch of scenarios where the extra Strength does nothing. +1 to wound would also be universally useful, but there might be too many weird scenarios where guns are suddenly punching above their weight classes. +1 to-hit would be nearly universal (doesn't help BS2+ attacks), but is less intuitive/evocative.

The game is going to require a big redesign to make vehicles good again, or even just feel right. But going back to armor would be a step in the right direction. Yes, it would require bases on vehicles and/or a template.

Honestly, the games design has gone downhill since 5th. A few good additions were made, but they keep messing up the good parts.

 Grey Templar wrote:
The game is going to require a big redesign to make vehicles good again, or even just feel right. But going back to armor would be a step in the right direction. Yes, it would require bases on vehicles and/or a template.

Honestly, the games design has gone downhill since 5th. A few good additions were made, but they keep messing up the good parts.

Note that returning to Armor Values (rather than just Toughness values with rules for flanking) is its own distinct topic with its own distinct problems.

I'm guessing everyone is pretty tired of hearing me ramble about why AV lowering interactivity between units and promoting skew lists is bad, right?

 Wyldhunt wrote:
Note that returning to Armor Values (rather than just Toughness values with rules for flanking) is its own distinct topic with its own distinct problems.

I'm guessing everyone is pretty tired of hearing me ramble about why AV lowering interactivity between units and promoting skew lists is bad, right?

There is no inherent relationship between using AV and skew lists. That it happens is due to GW's poor army composition rules, not AV.

Depends on which iteration of AV, its associated rules changed a lot from edition to edition.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
I'm guessing everyone is pretty tired of hearing me ramble about why AV lowering interactivity between units and promoting skew lists is bad, right?

No need, your signature covers it! Although you might need to add your line about "making tanks immune to lasguns means most of my army can't interact with it" to it.

As much as the granularity and simulated realism of vehicle facings looks good on paper, it's better to abstract it so we don't argue over miniatures and protractors. If you can surround an enemy, that means SOMEBODY has a view of its weak spot. If you can draw a line from friendly to friendly and through an enemy, he's surrounded and maybe just one of your friendlies gets that bonus AP.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:
Note that returning to Armor Values (rather than just Toughness values with rules for flanking) is its own distinct topic with its own distinct problems.

I'm guessing everyone is pretty tired of hearing me ramble about why AV lowering interactivity between units and promoting skew lists is bad, right?

There is no inherent relationship between using AV and skew lists. That it happens is due to GW's poor army composition rules, not AV.

Unless your army comp is such that an army cannot be run vehicle-heavy, every version of AV I've seen used by GW would make it skew.

Sure, a tank company of IG might have some supporting squads, maybe an Enginseer or two... But when 1,700 of 2,000 points are in tanks, it's not fun to be told "You only have three units in your entire force that can interact with the majority of the enemy. Good luck!"

Dominar_Jameson_V wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:
I'm guessing everyone is pretty tired of hearing me ramble about why AV lowering interactivity between units and promoting skew lists is bad, right?

No need, your signature covers it! Although you might need to add your line about "making tanks immune to lasguns means most of my army can't interact with it" to it.

As much as the granularity and simulated realism of vehicle facings looks good on paper, it's better to abstract it so we don't argue over miniatures and protractors. If you can surround an enemy, that means SOMEBODY has a view of its weak spot. If you can draw a line from friendly to friendly and through an enemy, he's surrounded and maybe just one of your friendlies gets that bonus AP.

Well, I do need to update it now that troops are no longer a thing and "Doctrines" aren't what they once were. [

JNAProductions wrote:

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:
Note that returning to Armor Values (rather than just Toughness values with rules for flanking) is its own distinct topic with its own distinct problems.

I'm guessing everyone is pretty tired of hearing me ramble about why AV lowering interactivity between units and promoting skew lists is bad, right?

There is no inherent relationship between using AV and skew lists. That it happens is due to GW's poor army composition rules, not AV.

Unless your army comp is such that an army cannot be run vehicle-heavy, every version of AV I've seen used by GW would make it skew.

Sure, a tank company of IG might have some supporting squads, maybe an Enginseer or two... But when 1,700 of 2,000 points are in tanks, it's not fun to be told "You only have three units in your entire force that can interact with the majority of the enemy. Good luck!"

This. It's possible to have a ruleset with AV that doesn't also promote skew, but you'd be talking about some kind of army composition overhaul at that point. Which would mean we'd be looking at three pretty major changes:

* Overhauling army composition.
* Overhauling vehicle durability (switching from Toughness to AV which probably means overhauling strength values on weapons again)
* Reintroducing armor facings (sort of under the umbrella of AV, but sorta-kinda-possibly its own thing.)

Which seems like a lot of work for the design goals of:
* Taking bolter damage vs vehicles from very little to absolutely none.
* Rewarding flanking. (Which again could probably be done with a crossfire mechanic that would also be applicable to non-vehicles.)

Realistically, a column of tanks chugging towards a battlefield would be spotted and the commander would scramble a counter-offensive of air, artillery, or an opposing tank company.
So if a tank squadron ambushes a FLGS, a commander there needs to request support from allies with anti-tank resources. Then we can have a big old battle of the bulge.

 Dominar_Jameson_V wrote:
Realistically, a column of tanks chugging towards a battlefield would be spotted and the commander would scramble a counter-offensive of air, artillery, or an opposing tank company.
So if a tank squadron ambushes a FLGS, a commander there needs to request support from allies with anti-tank resources. Then we can have a big old battle of the bulge.

So sideboards then?

 Wyldhunt wrote:

 Dominar_Jameson_V wrote:
Realistically, a column of tanks chugging towards a battlefield would be spotted and the commander would scramble a counter-offensive of air, artillery, or an opposing tank company.
So if a tank squadron ambushes a FLGS, a commander there needs to request support from allies with anti-tank resources. Then we can have a big old battle of the bulge.

So sideboards then?

Doesn't work for everyone.

Even ignoring logistical issues... I play Nurgle Daemons. What do I swap when the opponent brings lots of tanks?

Unless it comes in the form of off board artillery/missile fire. A few 9th edition stratagems reflected this. But they either sucked or felt really anti fun.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:

 Dominar_Jameson_V wrote:
Realistically, a column of tanks chugging towards a battlefield would be spotted and the commander would scramble a counter-offensive of air, artillery, or an opposing tank company.
So if a tank squadron ambushes a FLGS, a commander there needs to request support from allies with anti-tank resources. Then we can have a big old battle of the bulge.

So sideboards then?

Doesn't work for everyone.

Even ignoring logistical issues... I play Nurgle Daemons. What do I swap when the opponent brings lots of tanks?

True. Although lack of unit/niche diversity is kind of a problem for daemons (especially mono-daemons and especially especially mono-Nurgle) in general. That's probably its own problem that needs solving.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:

 Dominar_Jameson_V wrote:
Realistically, a column of tanks chugging towards a battlefield would be spotted and the commander would scramble a counter-offensive of air, artillery, or an opposing tank company.
So if a tank squadron ambushes a FLGS, a commander there needs to request support from allies with anti-tank resources. Then we can have a big old battle of the bulge.

So sideboards then?

Doesn't work for everyone.

Even ignoring logistical issues... I play Nurgle Daemons. What do I swap when the opponent brings lots of tanks?

True. Although lack of unit/niche diversity is kind of a problem for daemons (especially mono-daemons and especially especially mono-Nurgle) in general. That's probably its own problem that needs solving.

Agreed.
But, with the system as-is, you need to be mindful of not just Marines, but all the other armies too.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:

 Dominar_Jameson_V wrote:
Realistically, a column of tanks chugging towards a battlefield would be spotted and the commander would scramble a counter-offensive of air, artillery, or an opposing tank company.
So if a tank squadron ambushes a FLGS, a commander there needs to request support from allies with anti-tank resources. Then we can have a big old battle of the bulge.

So sideboards then?

Doesn't work for everyone.

Even ignoring logistical issues... I play Nurgle Daemons. What do I swap when the opponent brings lots of tanks?

No, I meant asking other players to go 2v1 or 3v1 against the tank spammer, pooling your anti-tank forces to match the tank-heavy list.
What is a side board? (Honest question)

As an aside, but sort of on-topic, daemons should have a way to combat vehicles, no matter the mechanics of the edition. (Pun not intended, sorry). They aren't of this world and should have done tricks up their sleeves; no rocket launches required.

 Dominar_Jameson_V wrote:

No, I meant asking other players to go 2v1 or 3v1 against the tank spammer, pooling your anti-tank forces to match the tank-heavy list.

Sounds like a fun scenario. Figure out roughly how much of an advantage a skew list has against multiple lists without anti-vehicle weapons and do a hordes-vs-tank-columns thing. Not great for pickup games though.

What is a side board? (Honest question)

Like a side deck in card games. Basically, you'd show up to play, look at your opponent's main list and then choose from a pool of "side" units that you would add into your army last minute. So for instance, in a 2k game, you might build a 1500 main list, show up to find that your opponent is bringing lots of tanks, and then add up to 500 points of units from your side board that are good at handling tanks. It lets you tailor your list a little bit last minute, basically.

As an aside, but sort of on-topic, daemons should have a way to combat vehicles, no matter the mechanics of the edition. (Pun not intended, sorry). They aren't of this world and should have done tricks up their sleeves; no rocket launches required.

Yeah, it's not quite as bad as it used to be, but most daemons of a given god tend to do some variation on the same thing. Like, for the longest time Slaanesh was mostly just daemonettes, fiends, and seekers, which were all some variation on "moves fast, dies fast, crits on 6s." Khorne is just eight flavors of melee plus a cannon. Nurgle is 7 flavors of hard-to-kill + usually-poisonous. Tzeentch is maybe slightly better as they have a mix of shooty hordes (horrors), mobile horde killers (flamers), and mobile anti-vehicle (screamers). But really, all the monogod daemon factions have a CSM-shaped hole in their roster.

If I were to try and make Nurgle daemons a bit more robust as a faction, I'd probably give them some "corrossive" wargear options that might make them a bit less dangerous to non-vehicles but more dangerous against vehicles. Anti-Vehicle 4+ or something. Maybe a mechanic where the enemy acquires "infection tokens" as they spend time in your territory or in melee with your units, so even if they don't kill you right away, getting too close to them means you start taking passive damage over time. So rather than simply giving them some shooting, you end up with this scenario where playing against nurgle makes it tempting to cede No Man's Land to avoid infecting yourself early, but then doing that means that the Nurgle units are relatively safe in their territory and primed to go infecting the rest of the table later on.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
The game is going to require a big redesign to make vehicles good again, or even just feel right. But going back to armor would be a step in the right direction. Yes, it would require bases on vehicles and/or a template.

Honestly, the games design has gone downhill since 5th. A few good additions were made, but they keep messing up the good parts.

Note that returning to Armor Values (rather than just Toughness values with rules for flanking) is its own distinct topic with its own distinct problems.

I'm guessing everyone is pretty tired of hearing me ramble about why AV lowering interactivity between units and promoting skew lists is bad, right?

Everything should have counters, and indeed hard counters should sometimes exist. AV of certain levels counters the spam of low power high volume attacks. You should NEVER be able to damage a Titan with a lasgun under any circumstances, in the fluff or on the tabletop.

Alternately, if we don't go back to AV, we could at least make certain Toughness values be unwoundable by certain strength values.

Perhaps change how wounding works. Make it so to wound you roll the D6 and add the Strength to together. if you equal or exceed the targets toughness you wound it, if you are under you fail to wound. So if the toughness is 7 or more than the attacks strength you cant hurt it at all, and attacks with an equal or greater strength than toughness would auto wound. This would also be far easier to remember/teach new players. No need for the crossreference charts that GW has always had.

This would require a total shuffle of toughness values upwards to maintain the same dynamics. Most toughness values would probably need to double while most weapons would remain the same. T8 marines, T6 guardsmen. Vehicles and monsters could be high teens or even 20+ toughness. Anti-tank weapons could even go back to the old days of rolling multiple D6 to wound. Multi-melta with Strength 8+2D6 type stuff.

Skew lists aren't necessarily bad for game balance. And they tend to cause other players to build to counter them if they become meta. The only reason they really were so much of an issue is because tournament play for 40k has always been 1 list per player so everybody gets locked in at the start. If tournaments allowed you to have 2 or more potential lists it wouldn't be as big of an issue as you could counter potential skews.

Which is why most other wargames that are played competitively use the multi-list format, it just cuts down on particular skews dominating the meta and the tournament devolving into a rock-paper-scissors of list building.

 Grey Templar wrote:

Everything should have counters, and indeed hard counters should sometimes exist. AV of certain levels counters the spam of low power high volume attacks. You should NEVER be able to damage a Titan with a lasgun under any circumstances, in the fluff or on the tabletop.
...
Skew lists aren't necessarily bad for game balance. And they tend to cause other players to build to counter them if they become meta. The only reason they really were so much of an issue is because tournament play for 40k has always been 1 list per player so everybody gets locked in at the start. If tournaments allowed you to have 2 or more potential lists it wouldn't be as big of an issue as you could counter potential skews.

Which is why most other wargames that are played competitively use the multi-list format, it just cuts down on particular skews dominating the meta and the tournament devolving into a rock-paper-scissors of list building.

I'm all for discussing sideboards, multiple lists, or some other method of cutting down on bad matchups. But that's a potentially complicated first step. Without that hypothetical first step already figured out, I wouldn't be particularly interested in returning to a version of the game where big portions of my army aren't allowed to interact with my opponent's skew list.

Alternately, if we don't go back to AV, we could at least make certain Toughness values be unwoundable by certain strength values.

Perhaps change how wounding works. Make it so to wound you roll the D6 and add the Strength to together. if you equal or exceed the targets toughness you wound it, if you are under you fail to wound. So if the toughness is 7 or more than the attacks strength you cant hurt it at all, and attacks with an equal or greater strength than toughness would auto wound. This would also be far easier to remember/teach new players. No need for the crossreference charts that GW has always had.

This would require a total shuffle of toughness values upwards to maintain the same dynamics. Most toughness values would probably need to double while most weapons would remain the same. T8 marines, T6 guardsmen. Vehicles and monsters could be high teens or even 20+ toughness. Anti-tank weapons could even go back to the old days of rolling multiple D6 to wound. Multi-melta with Strength 8+2D6 type stuff.

If someone wrote it out, I'd be willing to look at it. But on paper, that seems like a ton of work with lots of room for problem-injection to do just to say "lasguns can't kill titans." Especially when no one is regularly doing that as-is.

That said, superheavies are really awkward in 40k for a few reasons, and I'd be fine with giving them a rule that lets them ignore small arms. Not because small arms vs titans is a big problem in need of solving but because it's such a non-issue I just... don't really care.

You say you didn't like armor skews because "I can't interact with it with most of my army" yet at the same time you say "lasguns don't damage titans in practice anyway so we don't need to change it"

I say those are mutually exclusive opinions. If it was so rare for you to damage a titan with a lasgun, why would you care if it became impossible? Or is it more that you still want to throw a bucket of dice at a titan when there is nothing better to do and still get a wound out of it? Just accept that the lasguns you brought are 100% worthless and not 95% worthless.

Making it outright impossible to damage a particularly tough target via the basic wound mechanics is better and simpler than adding yet another complicated special rule.

 Grey Templar wrote:
You say you didn't like armor skews because "I can't interact with it with most of my army" yet at the same time you say "lasguns don't damage titans in practice anyway so we don't need to change it"

I say those are mutually exclusive opinions. If it was so rare for you to damage a titan with a lasgun, why would you care if it became impossible? Or is it more that you still want to throw a bucket of dice at a titan when there is nothing better to do and still get a wound out of it? Just accept that the lasguns you brought are 100% worthless and not 95% worthless.

Making it outright impossible to damage a particularly tough target via the basic wound mechanics is better and simpler than adding yet another complicated special rule.

There's a large difference in interactivity between players in "I can do nothing but stand here and die" vs "I can very likely do nothing but if I can leverage my tiny chance to do something, I can still play the game". It's not just like you're talking about lasguns either, titans would be immune to anything up to and including autocannons iirc.

 Grey Templar wrote:
You say you didn't like armor skews because "I can't interact with it with most of my army" yet at the same time you say "lasguns don't damage titans in practice anyway so we don't need to change it"

I say those are mutually exclusive opinions. If it was so rare for you to damage a titan with a lasgun, why would you care if it became impossible? Or is it more that you still want to throw a bucket of dice at a titan when there is nothing better to do and still get a wound out of it? Just accept that the lasguns you brought are 100% worthless and not 95% worthless.

Making it outright impossible to damage a particularly tough target via the basic wound mechanics is better and simpler than adding yet another complicated special rule.

I'm not all that interested in shooting lasguns at superheavies because between woundings on 6+ and the high number of Wounds that titans have, lasguns just aren't very likely to contribute enough to matter.

But what I do care about is shooting small arms at something like a rhino where each wound I take off is significant enough to feel like it was worth rolling for.

Now granted, I cared about this more last edition when we were talking about something like S4 weapons shooting at T7 vehicles. Now that bolters are wounding rhinos half as often, I'm not sure whether we've crossed the threshold into "not worth rolling for" territory.

I will say, 10th edition's changes to vehicle toughness and weapon strength have probably been a net negative for me so far. Small arms and melee attacks are less capable of interacting with vehicles in a pinch, and melta has ceased to be a reliably anti-tank weapon.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:

There's a large difference in interactivity between players in "I can do nothing but stand here and die" vs "I can very likely do nothing but if I can leverage my tiny chance to do something, I can still play the game". It's not just like you're talking about lasguns either, titans would be immune to anything up to and including autocannons iirc.

Very true, but also super heavies just sort of skew the scale of the game in weird ways. If you remove them from the equation, the units we see on the table mostly feel like they're playing in the same ballpark. A tank feels roughly comparable to a squad or two of super soldiers. Having some nuance between their stats makes sense, and you can see the Strength value needed to hurt the tank existing on the same chart as the value needed to hurt a super soldier. But then you bring knights or titans into the equation, and it starts to feel weird that guns meant to kill those things are sharing space with weapons meant to kill infantry.

It's hard for lasguns and titans to share a tabletop and not have it feel awkward one way or another, is what I'm saying.

I would say that lasguns and bolters should be incapable of hurting most if not all vehicles as well, and possibly some monsters.

Lasguns should be useless against anything that isn't a dude in some form. Bolters should only be able to damage very light skinned vehicles, and even then it is an iffy thing. Which is where armor value was perfect in the past. Rhinos could only be hurt from the rear by bolters, and things like DE skimmers were only barely damaged by bolters. Lasguns were useless against vehicles entirely as they should be.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
You say you didn't like armor skews because "I can't interact with it with most of my army" yet at the same time you say "lasguns don't damage titans in practice anyway so we don't need to change it"

I say those are mutually exclusive opinions. If it was so rare for you to damage a titan with a lasgun, why would you care if it became impossible? Or is it more that you still want to throw a bucket of dice at a titan when there is nothing better to do and still get a wound out of it? Just accept that the lasguns you brought are 100% worthless and not 95% worthless.

Making it outright impossible to damage a particularly tough target via the basic wound mechanics is better and simpler than adding yet another complicated special rule.

There's a large difference in interactivity between players in "I can do nothing but stand here and die" vs "I can very likely do nothing but if I can leverage my tiny chance to do something, I can still play the game". It's not just like you're talking about lasguns either, titans would be immune to anything up to and including autocannons iirc.

Well, if a large chunk of your army is useless that is mostly on you. You made the list that didn't bring enough anti-tank.

If there are any structural issues where skew lists are overpowered in certain matchups, that is a codex issue and not a core rules issue. Ditching AV and going to straight toughness where anything can hurt anything is just lazy design. And its quite immersion breaking for weak attacks to even have the chance of doing something vs stuff they have no business hurting realistically. Even competitive players want to have some immersion, otherwise they'd go play chess.

WW2 mini-gamers wouldn't tolerate rifles and pistols being able to hurt tanks, neither should we.

Granted, the current system isn't all bad. Vehicles having wounds is a good idea for balance purposes. Losing your expensive tank to a lucky one-shot, while very realistic, was always a feels bad moment.

I feel like a hybrid which brought back AV, kept wounds, and had some sort of chart to roll on like the old damage chart as well would be nice. Maybe you roll on the damage chart once your wounds drop below a threshold. Like every 1/3 or 1/4 of the vehicles wounds it rolls on a damage chart, with each threshold adding a penalty to the roll to represent the vehicle becoming more likely to detonate.

Something like this,

Vehicle Catastrophic damage chart(1D6): Each time a vehicle drops below a 25% increment of its total health(rounding up) it must roll on the following chart. The following penalties apply to the roll.

Vehicle is between 75% and 50% health: no penalty
Vehicle is between 25 and 50% health: -2 penalty
Vehicle is between 25 and 1% health: -3 penalty

5-6: Nothing
3-4: Crew Injured: Vehicle suffers -2 BS and WS for 1 turn
1-2: Immobilized: Vehicle may not move or make melee attacks for 1 turn
0: Fire: Vehicle suffers 1D3 wounds with no saves allowed
-1 or less: Ammo detonation: Vehicle is destroyed

Certain weapons could have special rules imposing penalties on this chart, certain vehicles could have innate bonuses on the chart, certain weapons or rules could force a roll on the chart even if a threshold hasn't been passed.

This would also incentivize repairing mechanics, as even a few extra wounds could bring a vehicle out of the danger zone.

 Grey Templar wrote:


Well, if a large chunk of your army is useless that is mostly on you. You made the list that didn't bring enough anti-tank.

That's the thing though. Unless you and your opponent are trading lists in advance or you happen to be really familiar with their collection, you don't know how much anti-tank is "enough." A vanilla list that brings a reasonable amount of AT for a non-skew list might find itself woefully lacking against a skew list. So you either:
A.) Continue to take a vanilla amount of AT and end up having bad matchups against skew lists. Or
B.) Start erring on the side of caution and load up on AT everywhere you can. Which means that non-AT options see less play and list diversity in general is reduced. Which stinks.

If there are any structural issues where skew lists are overpowered in certain matchups, that is a codex issue and not a core rules issue.

Well, no. Army construction is covered under core rules, and there currently aren't any rules in place to address the possibility of a bad matchup resulting from a skew list. A codex can reasonably have a bunch of different tank options in it. The issue is when your army can be composed of basically nothing but those tanks and there aren't any other rules to address the possible resulting bad matchup.

Ditching AV and going to straight toughness where anything can hurt anything is just lazy design. And its quite immersion breaking for weak attacks to even have the chance of doing something vs stuff they have no business hurting realistically. Even competitive players want to have some immersion, otherwise they'd go play chess.

Counterpoint: AV was overly-complicated design. It was a whole second attack resolution system just for targets that happened to be made of metal. That didn't always apply to units made of metal. Even ignoring the weirdness of dreadknights and riptides being "monstrous creatures" instead of vehicles, it was still odd that a carnifex or wraith lord got an armor save against an autocannon wound while a rhino didn't for some reason. It just lead to a bunch of have and have-not scenarios that didn't really make fluffy sense. There's not a lot of obvious difference between a wraith lord (aka an "eldar dreadnaught" ) and a marine dreadnaught that demands a wildly different attack resolution mechanic for the latter.

WW2 mini-gamers wouldn't tolerate rifles and pistols being able to hurt tanks, neither should we.

WW2 games don't have nearly as much variety or weirdness in their weapons as the 40k does. I'm willing to believe that fully automatic rocket propelled grenade launchers are capable of doing some minor damage to the janky space tank if it means matchups are less one-sided.

Granted, the current system isn't all bad. Vehicles having wounds is a good idea for balance purposes. Losing your expensive tank to a lucky one-shot, while very realistic, was always a feels bad moment.

Worth noting: the ability to be one-shot was partially there to balance out the fact that your vehicle was basically immune to most of the enemy's shooting. If you bring back immunity to small arms fire without also bringing back the possible feels-bad of dying to your opponent's first shot, then you'd be looking at functionally making vehicles more durable than ever.

I feel like a hybrid which brought back AV, kept wounds, and had some sort of chart to roll on like the old damage chart as well would be nice. Maybe you roll on the damage chart once your wounds drop below a threshold. Like every 1/3 or 1/4 of the vehicles wounds it rolls on a damage chart, with each threshold adding a penalty to the roll to represent the vehicle becoming more likely to detonate.

Something like this,

Vehicle Catastrophic damage chart(1D6): Each time a vehicle drops below a 25% increment of its total health(rounding up) it must roll on the following chart. The following penalties apply to the roll.

Vehicle is between 75% and 50% health: no penalty
Vehicle is between 25 and 50% health: -2 penalty
Vehicle is between 25 and 1% health: -3 penalty

5-6: Nothing
3-4: Crew Injured: Vehicle suffers -2 BS and WS for 1 turn
1-2: Immobilized: Vehicle may not move or make melee attacks for 1 turn
0: Fire: Vehicle suffers 1D3 wounds with no saves allowed
-1 or less: Ammo detonation: Vehicle is destroyed

Certain weapons could have special rules imposing penalties on this chart, certain vehicles could have innate bonuses on the chart, certain weapons or rules could force a roll on the chart even if a threshold hasn't been passed.

This would also incentivize repairing mechanics, as even a few extra wounds could bring a vehicle out of the danger zone.

I've pitched something similar in the past. My suggestion was slightly less complicated with the intention being to have damage to large units be a thing without requiring quite as much bookkeeping as in pre-8th editions. Basically:
* Instead of the wound brackets of 8th and 9th, you suffer vehicle damage when your vehicle is reduced below a certain number of Wounds.
* Then the player who owns the damaged unit selects one of the following results (or rolls randomly; hadn't decided): immobilized, weapon destroyed, stunned.
* Immobilized means your Movement becomes 0" for the rest of the game and you can't charge.
* Weapon Destroyed means your opponent chooses one of your weapons, and it becomes unusable for the rest of the game.
* Stunned means you can't move or attack until the end of your next turn, but then you go back to normal afterwards.

The thinking behind letting the controlling player choose was that it meant you could avoid being completely screwed by a result. I.e., no losing the railgun on your hammerhead. I'd probably have players only suffer vehicle damage once at either half or something like a quarter of their full wounds. (So a rhino would roll at either 5 wound or at like, 2 or 3 wounds remaining). Superheavies would potentially take vehicle damage at multiple points as a way of rewarding players for making progress against them.

I tend to agree that tanks and similar/stronger should be immune to small arms fire. That way infantry have no option but to flee or maneuver around a tank that breaks through their line.
I do also like the vehicle statuses of Oldhammer but also agree that it should be simplified a la Wyldhunt's suggestion.

In my opinion the problem of needing too much antitank in your army stems from there not being enough AT options for infantry.
Remember in Star Wars that Luke single-handedly took down an AT-AT essentially by attaching a melta bomb to it. Titan walkers could face the same threat: being swarmed by hormagaunts that can climb up and tear their way in.

Now, I doubt every faction's troops should suddenly get melta bombs or even krak grenades, and I don't think fire warriors climbing on the back of a land raider can do much but enjoy the view.
What if vehicles became susceptible to small arms once reduced to half health, via their armor being compromised and a weak point opening up? Couple that with more AT options and an infantry-heavy list just needs to protect their AT units long enough to weaken the vehicle-heavy list enough to finish them off.

Also as an aside, any sort of damage-status chart either needs to be generic enough to encompass tanks, walkers, and monsters, or else each of those types would need special rules to bypass certain statuses, like monsters never being immobilized.

A few scattered thoughts:

* The real issue here is that skew lists result in bad matchups. So a good solution is probably one that addresses that problem specifically.

* If you spread around extra AT to most/many units to the point that basically your entire army (including units that don't specialize tanks) can hurt tanks, then you're sort of just doing a bunch of work to end up back where we are now, right? You're just doing X damage to tanks with your dire avengers via their newly-added bespoke rule or grenade profile or whatever instead of with their existing attack profiles.

Or I guess maybe you end up functionally making tanks less durable overall if you end up adding more AT threat with the new rules than you took away by making them immune to small arms.

Sincere question for those who don't like bolters hurting tanks: would it be preferable to you to have a bunch of of new grenade profiles and special rules to hurt tanks if the end result is basically just the current status quo? It's a lot of work for basically no functional difference, but you'd be able to say that tanks are immune to bolters.

* Actually, fire warriors *could* climb on the backs of landraiders to hurt them once upon a time. Ah, EMP grenades. I miss you and haywire grenades.

* Making vehicles susceptible to small arms at half health would be fluffy, but it feels likely a slightly complicated add-on for what would feel like a very similar result to what we have now. No one is one-shotting land raiders with a volley of lasguns. Maybe lasguns scratch the paint if you point them at a healthy land raider, but they're probably not having any mechanical impact on the the LR's performance unless you're pairing them with some dedicated anti-tank guns. At which point you can just fluff it as the lasguns aggrevating the damage done by the anti-tank guns. Shooting through the hole a krak missile made or chipping away at a damaged patch of hull.

* Monsters being immobilized makes plenty of sense to me. But agreed that a hypothetical damage status chart would want to be generic enough to work for both vehicles and monsters.

My stake in this argument is that I actually enjoy skew lists. Nostalgia for Warcraft 3 trying to run an army of skeletons, or tower rushing, etc. A balanced army should be a natural counter to a skew list with the latter only having a narrow path to victory: going all in on its skewed strength.

And to reiterate what I mentioned earlier, the fun part about vehicles being immune to small arms is that if you manage to break a tank through your enemy's front line, you have an opportunity to push their back line around, causing them to flee and take cover. Currently, any infantry you can't threaten directly would pour small arms fire into you and fish for 6's. It might not cause significant damage but I argue it's the feeling that matters here, not the numbers.
Now if all those squads only had krak-level AT grenades instead of just being able to shoot lasers, they'd have to risk getting close enough to lob it.

I did forget about haywire grenades. They were before my time and my Tau only have puny flashbangs.

And my point about monsters not getting immobilized is that a tank losing a tread is immobilized, whereas a carnifex losing one or even both legs could still crawl with its arms. I think that's sort of a natural advantage monsters should have. But then there's walkers and if they have jump jets...

 Wyldhunt wrote:
A few scattered thoughts:

* The real issue here is that skew lists result in bad matchups. So a good solution is probably one that addresses that problem specifically.

You have to allow for the all tank lists because otherwise you'd be punishing the players who like that and have bought the models, likewise people who have spammed infantry would be punished after buying a bajillion infantry. Banning skew lists also would just end up with everybody having homogenous lists where all lists no matter the faction end up being 4-6 units of infantry, 3-5 tanks, 1-2 flyers, etc... and are all just boring and samey. At which point you might as well just not give any choice in how lists are made.

Granted, the way they've gotten rid of point costs for upgrades is almost like that anyway. You just take "the best" upgrades and play that.

I think the real solution is sideboards. You just gotta bite the bullet on having multiple lists in a tournament. Maybe even give some tactical options.

Like, you may have up to 3 lists for the tournament. Opponent gets to see your lists before picking theirs. If you have 1 list, you always play that list. If you have 2 or 3, both players secretly choose their list after seeing the opponents. If a player has 3 lists, the opponent can ban one of their lists from being chosen unless that player has only 1 list.

So a skew player could risk only taking a skew list, but they'd have no ban. The more lists you bring the more flexibility you have, but if you have 3 one could get banned.

This is honestly on 40k tournament organizers and not on GW. I think the only reason they haven't done this is because 40k is a very expensive hobby and they feel this could potentially exclude a lot of players if they don't have the ability to bring 3 lists to a tournament. I don't think this is a good excuse tho. You can still participate with fewer lists, and the vast majority of people who player in tournaments are going to have a large enough collection to do multiple lists.

Pretty much every miniature game tournament, and indeed even non-miniature game competitions, has sideboards for a very good reason. Skew happens, this is the only real solution.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dominar_Jameson_V wrote:

And my point about monsters not getting immobilized is that a tank losing a tread is immobilized, whereas a carnifex losing one or even both legs could still crawl with its arms. I think that's sort of a natural advantage monsters should have. But then there's walkers and if they have jump jets...

Exactly. A monster doesn't use the vehicle mechanics and would just be a beefy normal model. 100% effective till it dies.

Walkers are the odd bridge between monsters and vehicles, but I think the old walker rules were just fine at doing that. No using rear armor of a walker in melee unless its immobilized, takes damage like a vehicle, but is generally squishier than a normal tank.

Which does make sense. A mechanical monster should be different to one made of flesh and blood.

Dominar_Jameson_V wrote:My stake in this argument is that I actually enjoy skew lists. Nostalgia for Warcraft 3 trying to run an army of skeletons, or tower rushing, etc. A balanced army should be a natural counter to a skew list with the latter only having a narrow path to victory: going all in on its skewed strength.

The thing is, that's kind of the opposite of how skew lists operate in 40k. If you bring a list that hits hard and is immune to half your opponent's firepower, you're just going to wreck 'em and have an easier time winning than if you'd brought a vanilla list.

And to reiterate what I mentioned earlier, the fun part about vehicles being immune to small arms is that if you manage to break a tank through your enemy's front line, you have an opportunity to push their back line around, causing them to flee and take cover.

Tank shock is kind of its own can of worms that I'll leave for another discussion.

Now if all those squads only had krak-level AT grenades instead of just being able to shoot lasers, they'd have to risk getting close enough to lob it.

I'm open to looking at an overhaul of a ton of units to spread AT around more, but you're still looking at either increasing the amount of AT in a vanilla army (punishing vehicles in a non-skew list) or breaking even on the amount of AT in an army (in which case, all that work functionally just gets you back where you started but with more rules to remember.)

And my point about monsters not getting immobilized is that a tank losing a tread is immobilized, whereas a carnifex losing one or even both legs could still crawl with its arms. I think that's sort of a natural advantage monsters should have. But then there's walkers and if they have jump jets...

Exactly. A monster doesn't use the vehicle mechanics and would just be a beefy normal model. 100% effective till it dies.

Walkers are the odd bridge between monsters and vehicles, but I think the old walker rules were just fine at doing that. No using rear armor of a walker in melee unless its immobilized, takes damage like a vehicle, but is generally squishier than a normal tank.

Which does make sense. A mechanical monster should be different to one made of flesh and blood.

I don't follow whatever logic you two are seeing. Maybe a carnifex drags itself by its fore-arms. Maybe a walker (which is a vehicle) does too. Maybe a skimmer with a damaged repulsor unit manages to shakily keep flying in vaguely the right direction. Weapons (and limbs) can be ripped off of both vehicles and giant bugs/daemons. Mechanical systems can stutter, and biological organisms can be stunned. In practical terms, vehicles and monsters are more alike than different, especially in terms of how they behave when damaged.

Grey Templar wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:
A few scattered thoughts:

* The real issue here is that skew lists result in bad matchups. So a good solution is probably one that addresses that problem specifically.

You have to allow for the all tank lists because otherwise you'd be punishing the players who like that and have bought the models, likewise people who have spammed infantry would be punished after buying a bajillion infantry. Banning skew lists also would just end up with everybody having homogenous lists where all lists no matter the faction end up being 4-6 units of infantry, 3-5 tanks, 1-2 flyers, etc... and are all just boring and samey. At which point you might as well just not give any choice in how lists are made.

Note that I'm not necessarily saying "ban skew lists." I'm saying that skew lists currently cause problems that ought to be addressed, and making skew lists immune to half their opponent's ranged attacked doesn't help the situation.

I think the real solution is sideboards.

Sideboards could be good. I'm not even coming at it from a tournament perspective. I already bring two lists to the game store sometimes so my opponent and I can have a game with the list that seems like the best match. Formalizing something like that could have its merits. That's its own topic though.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
...

I'll admit I've never seen a skewed list since I've only ever played against my friends, but it is a sign of a broken system if one is a flat out advantage over a balanced list. However I still feel like all those interesting vehicle traits of olde, including ignoring low-strength attacks, can be properly balanced just by making sure every faction has multiple anti-tank options.
One AT hand grenade for each of the conventional troop units shouldn't spell doom for every transport or skimmer on the board, and it would give those ubiquitous troops the choice of retreating and regrouping or risking getting in lobbing range for an attack. I would prefer that over allowing those troops to just take potshots in retreat, or fish for 6's when they aren't being targeted.
For those races not known for pulling pins from grenades, there are lore reasons why their claws can cut through tank armor when a lasgun cannot. Tyranid claws are known for it, Daemons should defy physics, and I think even those Necron scarabs do something, like biting and burrowing in?

Switching gears, I think Grey Templar's and my reasoning for immobilizing vehicles and not monsters is that vehicles suffer component failure while monsters and beasts struggle until they're dead. A tank can still be 100% lethal even with a thrown track and unable to move, but I expect a monster to weaken with its degrading profile. Both can be stunned of course but i like vehicles to have a more binary status.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
The game is going to require a big redesign to make vehicles good again, or even just feel right. But going back to armor would be a step in the right direction. Yes, it would require bases on vehicles and/or a template.

Honestly, the games design has gone downhill since 5th. A few good additions were made, but they keep messing up the good parts.

Note that returning to Armor Values (rather than just Toughness values with rules for flanking) is its own distinct topic with its own distinct problems.

I'm guessing everyone is pretty tired of hearing me ramble about why AV lowering interactivity between units and promoting skew lists is bad, right?

How does AV promote skew? Fact is that it doesn't whilest the s-t table atm does promote skew en masse.

I think it's helpful to look at what we're trying to abstract to avoid getting lost in a game mechanics maze.

The whole point of armored vehicles is that they are effectively immune to small arms. If you take that away, to defeat their purpose and undermine the integrity of the rules.

This invulnerability need not be absolute, however, and there are in-game ways to counter it. Obviously, there are specialized anti-tank weapons that are man (or eldar) portable, there are other vehicles, and claws and such.

AV works best because it represents how vehicles truly work - armor is thicker in the front, weaker on the sides and rear, and you can blow off the tracks, rendering it immobile. You get these rules at a minimal cost in complexity because they are so intuitive.

As for tank columns being unbalancing, that's on the game designer, not tanks or AV. Does the game provide sufficient cover to allow infantry to swarm the vehicles? I'm thinking of the elaborate modifications required to US tanks in the Pacific.

Monster/alien powers speak for themselves.

I'm not current, so I'm not sure where things are, but in the older edition, pure armor armies had problems because of these weaknesses, especially to monstrous opponents who could tear them to pieces. Characters with power fists likewise made scrap out of them. This was why armor needed infantry support and combined arms was (and is) the way to go in real life.

The truth is, the more tactical options you have in-game, the less dominant force selection becomes. If heavy bolters can ding Rhino rear-facing armor, forward rushes without dealing with flank elements become suicidal. Tanks should fear for flank and rear shots from light heavy weapons.

It sounds like GW continues to make army selection more important than tactics, which is a shame, but nothing new.

We don't need AV for that, simply a tighter S/T table and facing rules would suffice.

As a fundamental point I dislike having an entirely different wounding system. You want small arms being unable to hurt tanks? fine but you can do that by modifing S/T.

That aside if we are going to make vehicles and monsters more resistant against small arms, that should also be balanced with making them more vulnerable to AT weapons.

If a balanced list is supposed to be able to counter a skew list, that meants AT units need to be able to get borderline absurd returns when used against vehicle and monsters. As in a HWT or a Devastator Squad with lascannons having a good chance of outright deleting a tank across the board.

 Tyran wrote:
As a fundamental point I dislike having an entirely different wounding system. You want small arms being unable to hurt tanks? fine but you can do that by modifing S/T.

They are fundamentally different things, so there should be different rules.

When you try to treat an APC the same as a carnifex, problems you will have.

AV is the best solution, but probably unworkable in the current edition. Failing that, there should be some bonus for rear/flank shots, but I'm getting a sense that the abstraction level in the game at this point is pretty huge.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
As a fundamental point I dislike having an entirely different wounding system. You want small arms being unable to hurt tanks? fine but you can do that by modifing S/T.

They are fundamentally different things, so there should be different rules.

When you try to treat an APC the same as a carnifex, problems you will have.

The fundamental difference is that one carries people and thus should have rules to carry people, but durability wise they aren't fundamentally different. A lascannon, melta or missile launcher should be able to kill both and autocannons should also be somewhat effective against both and both should ignore small arms.

But a Carnifex and a Dread? role wise and thus rule wise they are pretty much the same thing. An Exocrine and a Leman Russ Executioner, the same thing really, a Tyrannofex and a Rogal Dorn? mostly the same thing aside of some wargear differences.

 Tyran wrote:

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
As a fundamental point I dislike having an entirely different wounding system. You want small arms being unable to hurt tanks? fine but you can do that by modifing S/T.

They are fundamentally different things, so there should be different rules.

When you try to treat an APC the same as a carnifex, problems you will have.

The fundamental difference is that one carries people and thus should have rules to carry people, but durability wise they aren't fundamentally different. A lascannon, melta or missile launcher should be able to kill both and autocannons should also be somewhat effective against both and both should ignore small arms.

But a Carnifex and a Dread? role wise and thus rule wise they are pretty much the same thing. An Exocrine and a Leman Russ Executioner, the same thing really, a Tyrannofex and a Rogal Dorn? mostly the same thing aside of some wargear differences.

Is there a difference between a draft horse and a 2 person car? Of course there is. It is just absurd to have vehicles and monsters share damage mechanics. A creature is a living thing, a vehicle is an inanimate object. That alone IMO justified the old AV system.

Is it more complicated than just using the same Toughness system for everything? Yes, but I don't think it is any more complicated then having a toughness system where vehicles have degrading stat blocks based on their wounds, and potentially different toughness values for different facings. If anything, making it entirely different makes it easier to remember because nobody will get their wires crossed between a vehicle and a normal unit.

If anything, the AV system was simpler than the SvT system that has/is still used. To pen AV it was simply dice+strength of the attack, if equal to AV its a glance. If greater its a pen. Just simple addition.

Wounding Toughness is a complicated "If str is double, wound on 2+. If str higher but not double, 3+. If str is equal, 4+. If str is less than, but not less than half its 5+. If str is less than half, its 6+"

If the justification for getting rid of AV was "Its too complicated", we should have gotten rid of Toughness and just went with AV for everything. Its the far simpler damage system.

For the record I believe AT weapons should be just as effective against monstrous creatures as vehicles, and small arms as ineffective, although a lasgun to the eyeball is probably fair from a 6 hit, 6 wound, failed save. The vehicle status chart is more thematic and helps set machines apart from monsters, even if it isn't completely necessary.

 Tyran wrote:
If a balanced list is supposed to be able to counter a skew list, that meants AT units need to be able to get borderline absurd returns when used against vehicle and monsters. As in a HWT or a Devastator Squad with lascannons having a good chance of outright deleting a tank across the board.

As long as we're on the topic of overhauling the entire game for the greater good, AT weapons should have their own downsides like being ineffective against hordes.

I'll admit I've never seen a skewed list since I've only ever played against my friends, but it is a sign of a broken system if one is a flat out advantage over a balanced list.

It sure is!

However I still feel like all those interesting vehicle traits of olde, including ignoring low-strength attacks, can be properly balanced just by making sure every faction has multiple anti-tank options.

A few things here. First of all, are these AT "options" competing with non-AT options for slots/to be taken in the list? If so, then this risks invalidating non-AT options. A classic "you'll never take a flamer because you need every melta you can get" situation.

Second, for a given enemy list, you need X amount of AT to comfortably take on that list. Against a vanilla list, maybe you only need 7 AT. Against a skew list, maybe you need 12. If you take 12 AT in case of skew lists but face a vanilla list, your opponent's tanks are going to get deleted instantly which isn't great. If you take 7AT and face a skew list, you're going to have a bad time because you can't meaningfully engage them. Adding more AT to your list by giving bonus AT to a bunch of units changes how much AT you have, but it doesn't help ensure your amount of AT is appropriate for whatever list your opponent is bringing. Thus you end up with games where half your list is just there to stand around and die on objectives (not appealing) or where half your codex's options don't really exist because you have to pass over the anti-infantry options in favor of the AT options.

Third, I do wonder if people would actually enjoy having AT options all over the place. Like, if part of the appeal of taking a tank is that it's resistant to incoming attacks, does that get diminished when every enemy squad is throwing anti-tank grenades at you? You're immune to lasguns or bolters, sure, but now you live in a world where every unit has a way of hurting you efficiently.

Switching gears, I think Grey Templar's and my reasoning for immobilizing vehicles and not monsters is that vehicles suffer component failure while monsters and beasts struggle until they're dead. A tank can still be 100% lethal even with a thrown track and unable to move, but I expect a monster to weaken with its degrading profile. Both can be stunned of course but i like vehicles to have a more binary status.

A carnifex or wraith lord or daemon prince with their legs blown off can still point their guns and shoot. A vehicle can have its accuracy diminished because of damage to the mechanisms that let it swivel its guns or to the firing mechanisms. Bodies are just machines made out of meat. In the grimdark future of the 41st millenium where most monsters are too tough to care about silly things like blood loss and exposed organs, losing a weapon or a limb is pretty much the same as a vehicle losing a turret or a tread.

How does AV promote skew? Fact is that it doesn't whilest the s-t table atm does promote skew en masse.

Because having most of your army being literally immune to a large portion of your opponent's offense is an advantage. If your opponent didn't lean hard into AT to counter your skew list, you can comfortable kill off what AT units they do have and then spend the rest of the game essentially invulnerable.

As for tank columns being unbalancing, that's on the game designer, not tanks or AV.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. I'm not trying to assign blame, but it is what it is. Skew lists have problems. Parking lots are a form of skew list. Making those skew lists even skewier by making them immune to small arms exhasperates the non-interactivity of such lists.

I'm not current, so I'm not sure where things are, but in the older edition, pure armor armies had problems because of these weaknesses, especially to monstrous opponents who could tear them to pieces. Characters with power fists likewise made scrap out of them. This was why armor needed infantry support and combined arms was (and is) the way to go in real life.

You're describing making vehicles hyper-vulnerable to small amounts of AT. i.e. one-hit-kills. This was viewed by many as unfun back when we had AV. Your expensive land raider that you took specifically to be durable could die to the first lucky bright lance shot sent its way. Ditto your expensive hammerhead, fireprism, etc. Currently, most vehicles can't get taken out so easily by most anti-tank weapons, so when they do die it feels like your opponent had to invest something into killing it.

Also, MCs are no longer automatically good at killing vehicles, and vehicles can shoot their big guns even in combat right now. And we're not doing the ham-fisted thing from 5th where only troops can score. So lots of the weaknesses of vehicles have been mitigated in recent editions.

The truth is, the more tactical options you have in-game, the less dominant force selection becomes. If heavy bolters can ding Rhino rear-facing armor, forward rushes without dealing with flank elements become suicidal. Tanks should fear for flank and rear shots from light heavy weapons.

I mean, in practice heavy bolters usually aren't getting shots on rear armor. Double so now that weapon arcs aren't a thing. Plus, rhinos usually aren't the issue; it's the heavy-hitters that can generally sit in the backfield while putting out damage that you have to worry about.

We don't need AV for that, simply a tighter S/T table and facing rules would suffice.

As a fundamental point I dislike having an entirely different wounding system. You want small arms being unable to hurt tanks? fine but you can do that by modifing S/T.

That aside if we are going to make vehicles and monsters more resistant against small arms, that should also be balanced with making them more vulnerable to AT weapons.

If a balanced list is supposed to be able to counter a skew list, that meants AT units need to be able to get borderline absurd returns when used against vehicle and monsters. As in a HWT or a Devastator Squad with lascannons having a good chance of outright deleting a tank across the board.

Well put all around. I don't love the idea of makign vehicles immune to bolters, but if we must, we can do that in a much simpler, less messy way than welding on a second attack resolution process. And yeah, land raiders dying to the first round of shooting from devastators was how vehicle interactivity was handled before. Is that what people want to return to? (Honest question; you are allowed to want what you want.)

 Grey Templar wrote:

Is there a difference between a draft horse and a 2 person car? Of course there is. It is just absurd to have vehicles and monsters share damage mechanics. A creature is a living thing, a vehicle is an inanimate object. That alone IMO justified the old AV system.

And yet Necron Warriors always had a T value instead of AV.

At the scale 40k plays there is little point in differentiating monsters and vehicles, specially because both have the same roles.

Is it more complicated than just using the same Toughness system for everything? Yes, but I don't think it is any more complicated then having a toughness system where vehicles have degrading stat blocks based on their wounds, and potentially different toughness values for different facings. If anything, making it entirely different makes it easier to remember because nobody will get their wires crossed between a vehicle and a normal unit.

If anything, the AV system was simpler than the SvT system that has/is still used. To pen AV it was simply dice+strength of the attack, if equal to AV its a glance. If greater its a pen. Just simple addition.

Wounding Toughness is a complicated "If str is double, wound on 2+. If str higher but not double, 3+. If str is equal, 4+. If str is less than, but not less than half its 5+. If str is less than half, its 6+"

If the justification for getting rid of AV was "Its too complicated", we should have gotten rid of Toughness and just went with AV for everything. Its the far simpler damage system.

AV isn't a damage system, it is a wounding one. The actual damage system was the Damage Vehicle and giving everyone down to Gretchins a Damage table would get absurdly complicated fast.

Moreover because it doesn't care for AP it would be impossible to differentiate Orks and Marines with AV. So no, we cannot replace T with AV unless you are planning in adding Sv on top of AV.

 Tyran wrote:
And yet Necron Warriors always had a T value instead of AV.

In previous editions special infantry had AV, which was a neat way to set them apart and reinforce the mechanical side of things.

At the scale 40k plays there is little point in differentiating monsters and vehicles, specially because both have the same roles.

So carnifexes can serve as troop transports and tanks can engage multiple opponents in hand to hand combat?

The game has changed lot, then.

AV was not a problem when the game hadn't exploded into dozens of sub-lists and however many bolt gun flavors there are now.

There were specialized weapons to take out infantry, others to take down tanks/monsters, and then all-comers ones like the Heavy Plasma Gun which could pretty much handle everything, but had a slow rate of fire.

Obviously, I prefer that version, but something like it remains possible.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
And yet Necron Warriors always had a T value instead of AV.

In previous editions special infantry had AV, which was a neat way to set them apart and reinforce the mechanical side of things.

Are you advocating for a return to that?

At the scale 40k plays there is little point in differentiating monsters and vehicles, specially because both have the same roles.

So carnifexes can serve as troop transports and tanks can engage multiple opponents in hand to hand combat?

...There are currently rules for organic transports in the form of whatever the 'nid drop pods are called and maybe their superheavies if those still have rules in 10th. Theoretically, there's nothing stopping a monstrous creature from giving a ride to infantry. The exodites fandex I'm tinkering with has dinosaurs with platforms and netting on their backs that do exactly that. Tanks slamming into multiple opponents doesn't strike me as ridiculous, and obviously we have walkers that punch things all the time.

AV was not a problem when the game hadn't exploded into dozens of sub-lists and however many bolt gun flavors there are now.

I'm earnestly attempting and failing to understand the connection you're making between AV and bolter variants. I'd argue AV *was* less-than-perfect for quite a while (certainly between 5th when I started playing and 7th when it was last used.) If something like 8th/9th edition intercessor bolters had existed back then, they wouldn't have interacted with AV at all except in the sense that the Assault 3 gun would give the wielder an extra shot if you happened to be shooting at AV 10. Sub-lists have existed in one form or another for quite a while now (formations in 7th if nothing else), and they don't inherently relate to AV.

Are you just yelling at clouds, or am I missing something?

There were specialized weapons to take out infantry, others to take down tanks/monsters, and then all-comers ones like the Heavy Plasma Gun which could pretty much handle everything, but had a slow rate of fire.

Last edition, you wanted cheap guns with lots of shots to take on hordes, melta and other high strength/damage weapons weapons were much most points efficient at dealing with tanks/monsters than other weapons. Plasma was better against tanks/monsters than most non-specialized weapons, but wasn't nearly as good against them as the specialized weapons *and* was pretty efficient at clearing out heavy infantry. What you're describing existed less than a year ago.

Heck. It still exists now. You don't use a lascannon to clear a horde of gaunts, and you don't expect bolters to do any heavy lifting against a land raider. With the possible exception of the all-rounder weapons which have become kind of bad against actual tanks due to not having their Strength values scaled up.

There is no fundamental reason why a robot, a monster or a tank need different mechanics to one another.

They interact with the game in the same way - they shoot, they punch, they move.

The conversation is about scale - large things should be treated differently to small things.

Small things are removed when they take damage because they can't continue fighting whether dead or not. Large things lose capability as they take damage but are not removed.

That's it.

A tank track, robot leg, monster leg, all get damaged all affect mobility.

A tank gun, robot gun, monster gun all get damaged and affect shooting.

Etc.

A tanks fuel gets shot and blows up..instant death.

A monsters brain gets shot. Instant death.

There is nothing unique in the game that requires their rules be separated.

 Hellebore wrote:
There is no fundamental reason why a robot, a monster or a tank need different mechanics to one another.

They interact with the game in the same way - they shoot, they punch, they move.

The conversation is about scale - large things should be treated differently to small things.

Small things are removed when they take damage because they can't continue fighting whether dead or not. Large things lose capability as they take damage but are not removed.

That's it.

A tank track, robot leg, monster leg, all get damaged all affect mobility.

A tank gun, robot gun, monster gun all get damaged and affect shooting.

Etc.

A tanks fuel gets shot and blows up..instant death.

A monsters brain gets shot. Instant death.

There is nothing unique in the game that requires their rules be separated.

Tell you want. I'll give you infinite 9mm ammunition. Lets see how many shots it takes you to kill the crew of an M2 Bradly. Hint: you and the crew will die of old age before you do anything to it.

Why would a Carnifex have less/worse armor than a Rhino?

Because its fleshy and not made of metal. It'll probably have a lot of wounds, or even maybe more wounds, but in terms of what can actually cause damage it should be much more vulnerable to low strength attacks

 Grey Templar wrote:
Because its fleshy and not made of metal. It'll probably have a lot of wounds, or even maybe more wounds, but in terms of what can actually cause damage it should be much more vulnerable to low strength attacks

Why?
It’s not human fleshy.
Its fists and claws can rend right through terminator, tank, and dreadnought armor.
It’s a bio-engineered device of warfare.

And, if we look at the stats…
Carnifex has a 2+ armor
Repulsor has a 3+ armor
The Carnifex literally has better armor than a tank.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Because its fleshy and not made of metal. It'll probably have a lot of wounds, or even maybe more wounds, but in terms of what can actually cause damage it should be much more vulnerable to low strength attacks

Why?
It’s not human fleshy.
Its fists and claws can rend right through terminator, tank, and dreadnought armor.
It’s a bio-engineered device of warfare.

And, if we look at the stats…
Carnifex has a 2+ armor
Repulsor has a 3+ armor
The Carnifex literally has better armor than a tank.

Tanks didn't get armor saves back in the day when AV was a thing. And so does a squishy human who happens to be wearing Artificer armor or something.

But if you can't understand how a living creature is different from an armored vehicle I really can't help you.

I suppose the best way to differentiate it is that a vehicle is something that isn't alive and is piloted by something. A monster is something that is in and of itself alive.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:
There is no fundamental reason why a robot, a monster or a tank need different mechanics to one another.

They interact with the game in the same way - they shoot, they punch, they move.

The conversation is about scale - large things should be treated differently to small things.

Small things are removed when they take damage because they can't continue fighting whether dead or not. Large things lose capability as they take damage but are not removed.

That's it.

A tank track, robot leg, monster leg, all get damaged all affect mobility.

A tank gun, robot gun, monster gun all get damaged and affect shooting.

Etc.

A tanks fuel gets shot and blows up..instant death.

A monsters brain gets shot. Instant death.

There is nothing unique in the game that requires their rules be separated.

Tell you want. I'll give you infinite 9mm ammunition. Lets see how many shots it takes you to kill the crew of an M2 Bradly. Hint: you and the crew will die of old age before you do anything to it.

your point being? magic scif mega creature is also immune to 9mm ammo. I mean, an ELEPHANT is effectively immune to 9mm bullets.

The carnifex was t8 in 2nd ed, as was the avatar of khaine and the great unclean one. They were totally immune to bolters and lower.

Monsters being immune to small arms is as old as 40k is

 Grey Templar wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Because its fleshy and not made of metal. It'll probably have a lot of wounds, or even maybe more wounds, but in terms of what can actually cause damage it should be much more vulnerable to low strength attacks

Why?
It’s not human fleshy.
Its fists and claws can rend right through terminator, tank, and dreadnought armor.
It’s a bio-engineered device of warfare.

And, if we look at the stats…
Carnifex has a 2+ armor
Repulsor has a 3+ armor
The Carnifex literally has better armor than a tank.

Tanks didn't get armor saves back in the day when AV was a thing. And so does a squishy human who happens to be wearing Artificer armor or something.

But if you can't understand how a living creature is different from an armored vehicle I really can't help you.

I suppose the best way to differentiate it is that a vehicle is something that isn't alive and is piloted by something. A monster is something that is in and of itself alive.

If you lack the imagination to suppose that an alien, 38,000 years in the future and from another galaxy, who's species is capable of FTL travel and psychic attacks, can't have armor equal to or better than a tank's... I can't help you either.

Plus the moment that Dreadnoughts, Battlesuits, Terminators, Centurions, Daemon Engines, and suchlike start appearing, that massively starts to complicate things.

What's the difference between a Defiler and Soul Grinder? What's the difference between a Riptide and a Norn Emissary? What's the difference between a Wraithlord and a Dreadnought?

 Wyldhunt wrote:

I'm earnestly attempting and failing to understand the connection you're making between AV and bolter variants.

It's a question of game design space, which is finite. GW has chosen that this is where it wants to put its effort, in 31 flavors of small arms, each of which has a tweak or some special about it, rather than in differentiating armored vehicles from living creatures.

If you consolidate small arms and use that design space for AV, you introduce new tactical elements to the game because getting flank/rear shots can be decisive. Conversely, if vehicles are monsters on roller skates, no thought to this very real tactical problem need be given.

Instead, the focus becomes on weapon (and by extension army) selection, which frequently results in unsatisfying games because of mismatched forces.

But it doesn't if it is done well; it actually levels them because weapons that would otherwise fail against T can have success on the flank and rear AV Formerly invulnerable vehicles now have to watch their rear quarter.

I think this is more tactically interesting that throwing box lid of dice hoping for a 6.

we have individual unit data sheets

stick a silhouette top down of the vehicle/whatever on the data sheet, clearly showing some reference points

you can now vary toughness and/or save, or apply an AP modifier, or anything you like based on the arc. with a note that anything thats split across the join hits the arc of the model being shot at players choice

all round the same? yup doable, weaker from a narrow rear angle? doable. 180 degree hemispherical arcs? doable

for bonus points you could even have weapon fire arcs, all shown on a diagram thats unit specific - with a rules default that if there is no such diagram its the same toughness, armour saves and fire arcs all round.

sticks with the same system, just adds another layer, which can be used or not used on a case by case basis

Come on people, we need to learn to agree to disagree. Everyone knows the difference between a tank and a dinosaur. Yes, creatures can be thought of as organic machines, but organisms are mostly made of smaller organisms that live and die, whereas machines are just rocks glued together with a water boiler inside.
Resolving vehicle damage separately from creatures may not be strictly necessary but it can be a more interesting and thematic. Maybe Killteam could resolve Necron damage differently too, stunning and dismembering them like in Terminator, but at 40k's scale it's easier to draw the line at vehicles.

Vehicle facings mattering is logical as well since trucks and tanks cannot pivot or twist like beasts and walkers can, to protect their vulnerable points. Again it's not strictly necessary for the game, depending on the scale, but I enjoy the aspect of flanking and protecting your flank.

I think part of the issue here is that monsters are not dinosaurs, or horses or any real life animal.

They are monsters, they are covered in armored plates, they require anti-tank weapons to kill and a lot of them can punch through tanks.

You can kill an elefant with a rifle. You cannot do the same with a Carnifex.

I meant to add that I have no problem with big monsters also being immune to small arms.
However, since vehicles can be balanced by weaker rear armor or planting HE grenades in melee, I'm not sure how big monsters can be balanced similarly besides low enough Toughness.

leopard wrote:
we have individual unit data sheets

stick a silhouette top down of the vehicle/whatever on the data sheet, clearly showing some reference points

you can now vary toughness and/or save, or apply an AP modifier, or anything you like based on the arc. with a note that anything thats split across the join hits the arc of the model being shot at players choice

all round the same? yup doable, weaker from a narrow rear angle? doable. 180 degree hemispherical arcs? doable

for bonus points you could even have weapon fire arcs, all shown on a diagram thats unit specific - with a rules default that if there is no such diagram its the same toughness, armour saves and fire arcs all round.

sticks with the same system, just adds another layer, which can be used or not used on a case by case basis

If we were going to bring back Front/Side/Rear values (as Toughness or as AV), this would probably be the way to do it. The thing is, I rarely felt like arcs were really adding much to the game when they existed. 40k isn't mobile enough, played on a large enough board, or played over the course of enough turns for those values to matter much. It's simply too easy for most vehicles to point their butts at walls or board edges so that their rear armor doesn't really come up, and the majority of vehicles had the same Side armor as they did Front.

I guess maybe bringing back rear armor would encourage people to gunline (cower in their deployment zone) more and be more timid with how they use their tanks. Maybe field transports less often for fear of being one-shotted by a gun to the butt. But it seems like that's the opposite of the behavior most of us want to encourage, right?

 Wyldhunt wrote:
I guess maybe bringing back rear armor would encourage people to gunline (cower in their deployment zone) more and be more timid with how they use their tanks. Maybe field transports less often for fear of being one-shotted by a gun to the butt. But it seems like that's the opposite of the behavior most of us want to encourage, right?

Hiding with one's rear to the table edge doesn't protect the flanks, which can be reached through maneuver and crossfire.

And it is realistic for tanks to go "hull down" (so much as they can in this game) and just provide fire support. It seems silly to take transports and then park them, but everyone has their thing.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:
I guess maybe bringing back rear armor would encourage people to gunline (cower in their deployment zone) more and be more timid with how they use their tanks. Maybe field transports less often for fear of being one-shotted by a gun to the butt. But it seems like that's the opposite of the behavior most of us want to encourage, right?

Hiding with one's rear to the table edge doesn't protect the flanks, which can be reached through maneuver and crossfire.

And it is realistic for tanks to go "hull down" (so much as they can in this game) and just provide fire support. It seems silly to take transports and then park them, but everyone has their thing.

To clarify, hiding your rear worked in the past because historically, *most* vehicles in 40k had the same Front and Side armor. If you want to go a step beyond just bringing back facings and actively make side armor weaker than it used to be for a lot of vehicles, that's certainly an option, but that would warrant some discussion all on its own.

For instance, a rhino used to be 11/11/10. So do you:
* Make the front armor 12, making it more durable than ever before against front-on attacks?
* Make the side armor 10 and thus make it so that hitting rear armor is no better than hitting side armor? (Also, hitting side armor is usually pretty easy, so this would probably be a significant decrease in the rhino's survivability.)
* Make the side armor 10 and also lower the rear armor to 9, lower than AV normally went back in the day? This would bring us into get-punched-to-death-by-a-guardsman territory if we were using the old AV/Armor Pen system.

Summarizing a few of my thoughts:
A.) If the goal is to reward positioning by making a vehicle weaker from some angles than others, you don't need to reintroduce AV to do that.

B.) Crossfire is more likely to come up than rear armor, and it ihias the advantage of rewarding good positioning against any type of enemy unit; not just vehicles. So the feels-good of proper positioning is still there for the taking regardless of what your opponent's list looks like. Main downside is that you can't "flank" on your own (i.e. get shots against rear armor.) But personally, I'm not sure that's a terrible thing given the game's current level of abstraction.

C.) If you want to reward units for flanking an enemy on their own, the cleanest approach is probably just to give units (vehicles, though this would kind of work with any unit) a "rear" by setting a straight edge against the base/hull of any model in the unit. Any enemy that's on the same side of the straight edge as the unit is *not* flanking. Any unit on the other side of the straight edge *is* flanking and gets <insert benefits of attacking while flanking here>.

D.) Each of the above are possible changes that can be applied to the game individually or in combination. You can have flanking shots or crossfire without AV. So as we discuss options, keep in mind that each of the above doesn't necessarily depend on us *also* implementing one of the others.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
To clarify, hiding your rear worked in the past because historically, *most* vehicles in 40k had the same Front and Side armor. If you want to go a step beyond just bringing back facings and actively make side armor weaker than it used to be for a lot of vehicles, that's certainly an option, but that would warrant some discussion all on its own.

In 2nd, the armor was rated for "front" and "side/rear," which is more realistic. Yes, rear was probably more vulnerable, but not that much more.

The actual mechanism would vary depending one what system one uses, but the core notion is a good one: tanks are built to take frontal hits, and the rules should reflect this, and reward sound tactics.

Some tank in 40k have all-round protection, which reflects energy fields or alien concepts, which is fine. The thing is, by making "standard" tanks more realistic, one also highlights the weirdness of the alien stuff.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:
To clarify, hiding your rear worked in the past because historically, *most* vehicles in 40k had the same Front and Side armor. If you want to go a step beyond just bringing back facings and actively make side armor weaker than it used to be for a lot of vehicles, that's certainly an option, but that would warrant some discussion all on its own.

In 2nd, the armor was rated for "front" and "side/rear," which is more realistic. Yes, rear was probably more vulnerable, but not that much more.

The actual mechanism would vary depending one what system one uses, but the core notion is a good one: tanks are built to take frontal hits, and the rules should reflect this, and reward sound tactics.

Some tank in 40k have all-round protection, which reflects energy fields or alien concepts, which is fine. The thing is, by making "standard" tanks more realistic, one also highlights the weirdness of the alien stuff.

I see the appeal, but what does that mean in actionable terms? Using the rhino example from before:

For instance, a rhino used to be 11/11/10. So do you:
* Make the front armor 12, making it more durable than ever before against front-on attacks?
* Make the side armor 10 and thus make it so that hitting rear armor is no better than hitting side armor? (Also, hitting side armor is usually pretty easy, so this would probably be a significant decrease in the rhino's survivability.)
* Make the side armor 10 and also lower the rear armor to 9, lower than AV normally went back in the day? This would bring us into get-punched-to-death-by-a-guardsman territory if we were using the old AV/Armor Pen system.

If we're going the 2nd edition route, then it sounds like you'd prefer to nerf the rhino by making it more vulnerable on 3 of its 4 sides (including the 2 notably larger sides that are easy to get in position to target)?

 Dominar_Jameson_V wrote:
I meant to add that I have no problem with big monsters also being immune to small arms.
However, since vehicles can be balanced by weaker rear armor or planting HE grenades in melee, I'm not sure how big monsters can be balanced similarly besides low enough Toughness.

Monsters should also be vulnerable to being surrounded and attacked on their weak spots.

EDIT:

Also regarding vehicles, wouldn't also make sense to limit vehicle movement? implementing facings is partially undermined if vehicles are allowed to turn as much as they want during their movement which can lead to some weird movements like a tank practically moving sideways.

Obviusly that wouldn't apply to walkers and hovercraft, but treads and wheels aren't known for their freedom of movement.

Also regarding vehicles, wouldn't also make sense to limit vehicle movement? implementing facings is partially undermined if vehicles are allowed to turn as much as they want during their movement which can lead to some weird movements like a tank practically moving sideways.

Obviusly that wouldn't apply to walkers and hovercraft, but treads and wheels aren't known for their freedom of movement.

Simulationism vs gameplay. It would make sense, but is it worth the time and energy to write those rules and then make people execute on those rules on the tabletop? If we were going to expand on vehicle movement, I think I'd be more interested in a return to different vehicle speeds and how they impact your ability to turn or your speed-as-defense. (Ex: Turbo boosting your vehicle moves it far and makes it hard to hit, but you can't necessarily change direction or disembark troops, etc.)

 Wyldhunt wrote:
If we're going the 2nd edition route, then it sounds like you'd prefer to nerf the rhino by making it more vulnerable on 3 of its 4 sides (including the 2 notably larger sides that are easy to get in position to target)?

I prefer 2nd, and wanted to support the notion of side armor in principle. As I've said before, I don't have have a set solution to it, I just think it should represented in the rules.

I also like the concept of AV being different from T because it is. Tanks aren't living things, they're shells built around living things. For expediency, we don't make a roll to penetrate AV and then roll S vs T on the crew (though 2nd did something like that).

I actually like the idea of monster facings (hard carapace vs soft underbelly?), but it would be hard to represent as opposed to vehicles with angles and wheels and things.

Sure as long as it is an Imperial vehicle, it gets harder with Eldar and Tau vehicles.

 Tyran wrote:
Sure as long as it is an Imperial vehicle, it gets harder with Eldar and Tau vehicles.

Not well versed on the Tau, Eldar had fields rather than plate armor, so all-equal armor gives them the appropriate feel.

In my most recent game (sadly some months ago), my Chaos Space Marine commander dusted a Falcon with a haywire grenade thrown from a Disc of Tzeentch. It was epic - and about the only thing that went well for me during the entire battle.

And since no one asked, my Chaos Rhinos got wrecked by flanking fire from Vypers.

And what about Riptides and Wraith units?

This distinction you are making make sense as long as you are only considering a Leman Russ on one side and a Carnifex on the other, but it falls apart if you start bringing Dreadnoughts, Wraithlords, Daemon Engines, etc.

Many of those aren't living stuff but also are not a metal shell with a crew inside.

And of course a metal shell with a living thing inside describes the entirety of the Space Marine faction and everyone else in Power Armour or better.

I still think one of the trade-offs in facings / rear armor is that monsters should not have them. Obviously big beasts aren't nimbly dodging lasers but trucks and tanks cannot pivot or twist like beasts and walkers can to protect their vulnerable points.

Also I agree that vehicles would need their movement limited like before for facings to matter.

Edit: To clarify, any walkers, living or mechanical, should be able to turn, pivot, or twist better than a wheeled or tracked vehicle in order to cover its flank. Hovertanks could have the advantage of strafing or unlimited turning.
Now if the Tau Stormsurge should have a rear facing when anchored, I'm not sure.

I'll add my voice to Wyldhunt's "Crossfire/Flanking mechanics are the better idea."

Cuadrupedal and hexapodal walkers and monsters aren't turning quickly.

And even bipedal ones aren't going to be able to protect their rear if they are flanked from two or more different directions.

If you want to make it so a player doesn't just hide their vehicles on the map edge and gunline it up, the answer to that is scenario design.

Make mobility important so they use those vehicles for more than just a firebase.


Change objectives from just something that happens at the end of the game, but instead something you need to actively interact with each turn.

Change scenarios to where the game doesn't end at a fixed turn, but rather when someone gets to a certain victory point amount. Each turn an objective is held you get a point, so if a gunline just sits back and shoots they're not getting points and could lose within 3 or so turns if they just act passively.

Make tanks want to move around. Bring tank shock back, and make it strong, so vehicles are encouraged to drive around in the middle, leaving them potentially open to getting flanked. Keep the current melee stats so tanks can fight in melee, but say they can just move out of melee if they want to because they're tanks, maybe even doing damage to units they drive through(with the units getting some attacks of opportunity).

You can design the rules in ways that make maneuvering matter, which would open the door for some actual interesting play.

JNAProductions wrote:I'll add my voice to Wyldhunt's "Crossfire/Flanking mechanics are the better idea."

Thanks!

Tyran wrote:
And of course a metal shell with a living thing inside describes the entirety of the Space Marine faction and everyone else in Power Armour or better.

Plus, what is your body but a meat machine being piloted by your brain.

Here's the list of things that were on the vehicle damage chart in the past. I feel like all of them could reasonably be applied to monsters too. I would be curious to know which of these forms of damage people feel would NOT translate well to monsters:
Shaken: The crew is rattled/thrown off their game. For a monster, this would just be the monster flinching/being thrown off rather than the guys inside.
Stunned: Per above, but intense to the point that you sort of freeze up for a moment. For monsters, this is just a concussion or a moment of overwhelming pain.
Weapon Destroyed: Your gun gets broken. Monsters' guns can break.
Immobilized: You can't move around the board any more. Tanks lose treads. Dreadnaughts and wraithlords can lose their legs.
Wrecked: You're rendered inoperable. For a monster, this means being knocked out/killed/damaged so severely you can't move.
Explosion: As wrecked, but you make it everyone else's problem. We already have a monstrous version of this on tyranids.

Grey Templar wrote:If you want to make it so a player doesn't just hide their vehicles on the map edge and gunline it up, the answer to that is scenario design.

Make mobility important so they use those vehicles for more than just a firebase.

Change objectives from just something that happens at the end of the game, but instead something you need to actively interact with each turn.

Typically, other elements in your list move around/forward doing the scoring. You don't generally send a hammerhead forward for the same reason you don't typically have devastators walking forward. Some units are sit-back-and-shoot units, and that should be okay.

Change scenarios to where the game doesn't end at a fixed turn, but rather when someone gets to a certain victory point amount. Each turn an objective is held you get a point, so if a gunline just sits back and shoots they're not getting points and could lose within 3 or so turns if they just act passively.

We're functionally in a similar position to that already. The game still ends when it ends, but *not* fighting for objective control will mean you lose in the end.

Make tanks want to move around. Bring tank shock back, and make it strong, so vehicles are encouraged to drive around in the middle, leaving them potentially open to getting flanked.

To my knowledge, Tank Shock has never really been done very well. Unless someone opted into a Death or Glory, you typically just scooched slightly to the side to no other effect. It was pretty rare someone was even able to get an enemy unit completely off of an objective with it. Alternatively, people sometimes managed to box in an enemy unit with like, 3+ tanks at once, then auto-deleted an enemy unit in a gamey way that always seemed to upset those the tactic was used against.

I'm all ears on an improved battleshock. Just know that you're proposing we do something that has failed in multiple different forms in the past.

Keep the current melee stats so tanks can fight in melee, but say they can just move out of melee if they want to because they're tanks, maybe even doing damage to units they drive through(with the units getting some attacks of opportunity).

I do like the idea of vehicles being able to fall back through other models. I'd even be tempted to say that we should buff tank melee by giving them some really potent attacks on the charge. Although that gets into the weirdness of making every tank in the game double as a melee unit that then has to pay points for a melee ability it doesn't generally want to use.

You can design the rules in ways that make maneuvering matter, which would open the door for some actual interesting play.

Say, perhaps, a crossfire rule. That rewards maneuvering against all targets instead of just vehicles. And doesn't require we bring back AV and all the problems that come with it.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

Plus, what is your body but a meat machine being piloted by your brain.

And a vehicle is a machine your body drives, making it far less responsive when tenths of a second count.

Here's the list of things that were on the vehicle damage chart in the past. I feel like all of them could reasonably be applied to monsters too. I would be curious to know which of these forms of damage people feel would NOT translate well to monsters:
Shaken: The crew is rattled/thrown off their game. For a monster, this would just be the monster flinching/being thrown off rather than the guys inside.
Stunned: Per above, but intense to the point that you sort of freeze up for a moment. For monsters, this is just a concussion or a moment of overwhelming pain.
Weapon Destroyed: Your gun gets broken. Monsters' guns can break.
Immobilized: You can't move around the board any more. Tanks lose treads. Dreadnaughts and wraithlords can lose their legs.
Wrecked: You're rendered inoperable. For a monster, this means being knocked out/killed/damaged so severely you can't move.
Explosion: As wrecked, but you make it everyone else's problem. We already have a monstrous version of this on tyranids.

The biggest difference is that monsters are unitary, solitary actors, usually only capable of doing one thing at a time. Because vehicles can have crews, they can do many things at once - moving fast while firing every weapon.

While some of the effects translate, others don't. I've never heard of a Tyranid losing use of a bioweapon or a great demon breaking its sword/claws/whip. Is this a new rule?

Knocking a leg off of a walker is generally disabling, though again, this may have changed. A mobility kill on a tank still leaves the turret able to rotate and hull weapons operable.

A demon exploding is...interesting.

As for maneuver, yes, the focus of the game (and its rules) will determine how much vehicles move around. Third edition reduced them to little more than pillboxes with treads. Tanks were slow, incapable of firing main guns on the move, and really the only vehicular maneuver tactic was the Rhino rush.

Earlier editions featured far more mobility (albeit with some maneuver limitations at high speed) though transports were a bit problematic because certain hits wiped out the crew regardless of their armor. (My updated corrects this, giving all models on board an unmodified armor save, creating fun situations where Terminators cut their way out of the wreck of their Land Raider, which is as it should be.)

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:

Plus, what is your body but a meat machine being piloted by your brain.

And a vehicle is a machine your body drives, making it far less responsive when tenths of a second count.

Count in what meaningful way though? Are you saying that monsters have better reaction times and thus shouldn't be capable of being shaken or...?

The biggest difference is that monsters are unitary, solitary actors, usually only capable of doing one thing at a time. Because vehicles can have crews, they can do many things at once - moving fast while firing every weapon.

A flyrant seems to have no trouble moving fast while firing every weapon. It will even swoop down and follow up with a multi-limbed melee attack afterwards. My wraith lord can shoot in four different directions while jogging forward and charging the enemy.

While some of the effects translate, others don't. I've never heard of a Tyranid losing use of a bioweapon or a great demon breaking its sword/claws/whip. Is this a new rule?

It isn't a rule that has existed in the past. The point is that you're trying to make a fluff argument for why monsters and vehicles are so different they need distinct rules, and I'm making a fluff argument to counter that. A bioweapon ceasing to function is literally just a lascannon popping the ammo sack or burning through the tubes or barrel of the stranglethorn cannon. A demon loosing its sword is literally just my wraithlord cutting its arm off. Are you trying to make the case that an exocrine's cannon is impossible to damage or something?

Knocking a leg off of a walker is generally disabling, though again, this may have changed. A mobility kill on a tank still leaves the turret able to rotate and hull weapons operable.

And if you blow my wraithlord's leg off at the knee, he'll continue to do his best to sit up or roll around to point his guns at enemies. Just like the turret continuing to rotate.

A demon exploding is...interesting.

Interesting? Sure. But also not hard to picture. Big, important demonic monster dies. Warp energy leaks out as an explosion or a burst of flesh eating flies or everything near it is frozen, etc. It's your standard death of Sauron moment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkIoFgFhTlo

(My updated corrects this, giving all models on board an unmodified armor save, creating fun situations where Terminators cut their way out of the wreck of their Land Raider, which is as it should be.)

Sound scool.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:

Plus, what is your body but a meat machine being piloted by your brain.

And a vehicle is a machine your body drives, making it far less responsive when tenths of a second count.

If we're going to go down this line of questioning, and ignore how this would determine that things like Daemon Engines like Defilers as monsters, and suits like Riptides as vehicles (which neither were, prior to AV being removed), how do we then go about calculating the response times of, say, an Ork boy to an Eldar Striking Scorpion? If these "tenths of a second" count, then there's a greater disparity between infantry units than there is between one lumbering behemoth and another.

Here's the list of things that were on the vehicle damage chart in the past. I feel like all of them could reasonably be applied to monsters too. I would be curious to know which of these forms of damage people feel would NOT translate well to monsters:
Shaken: The crew is rattled/thrown off their game. For a monster, this would just be the monster flinching/being thrown off rather than the guys inside.
Stunned: Per above, but intense to the point that you sort of freeze up for a moment. For monsters, this is just a concussion or a moment of overwhelming pain.
Weapon Destroyed: Your gun gets broken. Monsters' guns can break.
Immobilized: You can't move around the board any more. Tanks lose treads. Dreadnaughts and wraithlords can lose their legs.
Wrecked: You're rendered inoperable. For a monster, this means being knocked out/killed/damaged so severely you can't move.
Explosion: As wrecked, but you make it everyone else's problem. We already have a monstrous version of this on tyranids.

The biggest difference is that monsters are unitary, solitary actors, usually only capable of doing one thing at a time. Because vehicles can have crews, they can do many things at once - moving fast while firing every weapon.

As already stated... no. Flyrants can fly, shoot multiple guns, use psychic powers and charge. Riptides can fly, shoot a myriad of weapons, boost their nova reactor, and charge. "Monsters" are just as capable as "vehicles" in that regard, despite having one pilot - and then bringing in to having one pilot, what about the vehicles that HAVE only one pilot - a Dreadnought, a Stormtalon, a Sabre? Do they suffer because they have only one pilot, as opposed to multiple?

While some of the effects translate, others don't. I've never heard of a Tyranid losing use of a bioweapon or a great demon breaking its sword/claws/whip. Is this a new rule?

Why couldn't it be? If you can blast the limb off a Dreadnought, you should be able to blast it off of a Carnifex. If you can disable the cannon on a Doomsday Ark, you should be able to do it to a Tyrannofex.

Knocking a leg off of a walker is generally disabling, though again, this may have changed. A mobility kill on a tank still leaves the turret able to rotate and hull weapons operable.

Losing a leg doesn't suddenly stop a Riptide from using it's arms. Losing a leg doesn't prevent an Exocrine from firing it's gun (which is more sentient than the entity that carries it!)

A demon exploding is...interesting.

Not really. An implosion of reality from warp energy being destabilised.

There's far too many cases where vehicles and monsters overlap for them to be ignored like this.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:


There's far too many cases where vehicles and monsters overlap for them to be ignored like this.

I guess the point is how YOU want it to feel. Do you want vehicles to feel different from monsters or exactly the same?

I personally think dinosaurs should feel different than tanks, because they are different than tanks. I think living things and machines are fundamentally different, and rules should convey this.

A lot of rules are about fluff, giving the sense of the thing that it is. Thus differentiation is a feature, not a bug.

But if your design objective is to make infantry and super-heavy tanks merely stops on one long continuum, I guess GW has found a system to do that, and vehicles don't have variable armor, just abstract levels of hits, so there's no point in finding weak spots because they don't exist.

I mean, a carnifex might see the flash of artillery and turn to offer its thickest part of carapace, which is something tanks absolutely cannot do. You can't have a tank reflexively do a 90 degree spin to ensure its glacis takes the hit.

But yeah, I guess they both move and kill things, so the rules can be the same if that's what people prefer.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:


There's far too many cases where vehicles and monsters overlap for them to be ignored like this.

I guess the point is how YOU want it to feel. Do you want vehicles to feel different from monsters or exactly the same?

I personally think dinosaurs should feel different than tanks, because they are different than tanks. I think living things and machines are fundamentally different, and rules should convey this feeling, but yes, if you want to draw the level of abstraction back enough, a submarine is functionally an armed whale.

Do you like having a dozen different variations of Bolters?

Because that's an example of LESS abstraction. There's a thousand and one different builds of the ordinary Bolter, from different Forgeworlds, made with different exact materials, in different patterns...
But on the tabletop, they're S4 AP0 D1 24", with either 1 shot and RF1, or 2 shots for those especially good with them (namely Marines and CSM).

A Carnifex and a Dreadnought won't respond identically to different things. EMPs work better on the Dread, Poison on the Fex, but to most weapons, they're not very different. A Bolter struggles to damage either, while a Lascannon doesn't nearly as much.

If you tune in fine enough, there are differences. But are those differences worth modeling in a system of 40k's scope?

 JNAProductions wrote:
Do you like having a dozen different variations of Bolters?

...

If you tune in fine enough, there are differences. But are those differences worth modeling in a system of 40k's scope?

That's a very good point. I do think 40k wastes too much design space on small arms and I'd like to see greater division between living and non-living things.

And obviously I preferred the greater detail of games where tanks could go hull down, leaving only the turret face exposed to incoming fire.

One thing I forgot to address is the difference in response time between an ork and a Striking Scorpion.

In the edition I play, it's a big deal! High initiative allows one to dodge certain weapon attacks, sense hidden units at greater distances and gives one an edge in close combat.

Again, it's all about what people want, what makes the game feel authentic. I like tanks, so I liked rules that made them behave differently than demonic or living things.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:


There's far too many cases where vehicles and monsters overlap for them to be ignored like this.

I guess the point is how YOU want it to feel. Do you want vehicles to feel different from monsters or exactly the same?

Considering that many of those are massive grey areas between eachother, that 40k is filled with monsters that are better described as "living battering rams", and then vehicles which move even more fluidly than some infantry, I think that it's rather a case of "should this be a target for anti-infantry weapons, or for the BIG guns"?

If you want things to "feel" differently, then give things agility stats, increase their manoeuvrability, or stats that reflect their reaction time. But arbitrarily saying "this is biological, so it's a monster" and "this is mechanical, so it's a tank" ignore that in 40k, many "mechanical" things move like infantry, and many "biological" things act more like tanks. Do you dispute that fact?

I personally think dinosaurs should feel different than tanks, because they are different than tanks. I think living things and machines are fundamentally different, and rules should convey this.

And I personally think that things that behave like a tank, whether biological or not, should be treated like one, and not given some special dispensation because their armour is made out of chitin tougher than the plating of a light tank. If it moves like a tank, shrugs off damage like a tank, and is frequently referred to *as* a biological tank... it should share the same rules as tanks. What about being a living being means you can't have your arms blown off, or get stunned by a lascannon round? What about being a living being doesn't stop your chitinous plates having weapon spots, like at the back? What about being a living being stops you from being slower than the mechanical construct created by psychoactive materials and insane technology?

A lot of rules are about fluff, giving the sense of the thing that it is. Thus differentiation is a feature, not a bug.

Why? Why should they be differentiated? Why is a Carnifex different to a Dreadnought? Why is a Tyrannofex immune to its rupture cannon being damaged, but a Vindicator is not?

I've asked the above questions, but you don't explain why there's a distinction, because you're not addressing the grey areas.

But if your design objective is to make infantry and super-heavy tanks merely stops on one long continuum, I guess GW has found a system to do that, and vehicles don't have variable armor, just abstract levels of hits, so there's no point in finding weak spots because they don't exist.

No, because then you give BOTH vehicles and monsters weak spots. Not sure why you can't recognise that.

I mean, a carnifex might see the flash of artillery and turn to offer its thickest part of carapace, which is something tanks absolutely cannot do. You can't have a tank reflexively do a 90 degree spin to ensure its glacis takes the hit.

And the meltagunners from behind it? It can just rotate to deflect those, at the same time? You're suggesting that Carnifexes, Tyrannofexes, Tervigons, etc can just INSTANTLY rotate at all times to make sure their carapace is in the right place constantly? And that something like a Vyper or Starweaver or Venom can't jink and dodge to ensure its hull is where it needs to be? That a Stormsurge, even while anchored to the ground, can just pivot and rotate without any issues?

That's laughably abstracted, more so than any issue between "biological" and "mechanical". I'm MORE than happy with "biological" or "mechanical" keywords (oh! like MONSTER and VEHICLE!) to represent poisons working differently to EMPs, but in terms of how they receive damage, how they take wounds, etc? No. They are functionally the same.

That's not to say I'm tied to "only Wound counters, nothing more" - instead, have Monsters ALSO suffer from a damage table. They can be shaken, stunned, immobilised, etc. Why is that a problem for you? Then you have your units which function differently to infantry, which you need to flank and position around to be effective, which take damage in a unique, specific way, while also accommodating for the fact that many of these monsters are functionally tanks in their own right, and should play by the same rules.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:
I'd like to see greater division between living and non-living things.

Many living beings behave more like a tank than the non-living ones in 40k though. Carnifex vs Riptide, for example.

One thing I forgot to address is the difference in response time between an ork and a Striking Scorpion.

In the edition I play, it's a big deal! High initiative allows one to dodge certain weapon attacks, sense hidden units at greater distances and gives one an edge in close combat.

But what about at range? In responding to changing battlefield circumstances and retaliatory fire? You know - the same treatment you compared between a being which is in intimate connection with its externals, and one that has to use a control interface?

Again, it's all about what people want, what makes the game feel authentic.

Okay - I think it's more authentic that a biological tank behaves more like a tank than a foot soldier. I think it's more authentic that a monster can have its limbs blown off, staggered, and luckily killed, in the same way a tank or walker can.

I like tanks, so I liked rules that made them behave differently than demonic or living things.

But what happens when those demonic and living things behave like a tank? Like how we've seen them do in 40k?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
And the meltagunners from behind it? It can just rotate to deflect those, at the same time? You're suggesting that Carnifexes, Tyrannofexes, Tervigons, etc can just INSTANTLY rotate at all times to make sure their carapace is in the right place constantly?

No, I'm not saying that, and I think you know that. It takes far more time and effort for a tank to reverse its facing than a living creature that has legs, hips, a waist joint, etc. Indeed, this is why mechanical walkers exist.

I would also posit that a tank crew - especially one that is buttoned up - has far less situational awareness than a monster.

Starweavers are the Harlequin Transport.
Venoms are the Dark Eldar Transport.
They are NOT Jetbikes.

And losing a limb is traumatic... To a HUMAN.
Orks can be decapitated and their head sewn onto a new body, and be fine. I can't imagine a Carnifex has pain receptors in the same way humans do-they need to be aware of if they're taking damage, but given that they lack human essentials like a digestive system (they're purpose-made for a battle, and go into the digestive pools for biomass recycling when done) it'd be much more akin to just being aware of it, not traumatized or stopped by it (generally speaking).
Hell, Space Marines can, if I recall correctly, clot normally traumatic injuries in moments.

You're arguing from a point of modern-day realism. That's not accurate to 40k.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Starweavers are the Harlequin Transport.
Venoms are the Dark Eldar Transport.
They are NOT Jetbikes.

Then why lump them in with Vypers???

And losing a limb is traumatic... To a HUMAN.

Humans aren't unique in that respect, but I guess that argues against Tyranids being treated like human tank crews, doesn't it?

Orks can be decapitated and their head sewn onto a new body, and be fine.

But that's only because it's funny.

I can't imagine a Carnifex has pain receptors in the same way humans do-they need to be aware of if they're taking damage, but given that they lack human essentials like a digestive system (they're purpose-made for a battle, and go into the digestive pools for biomass recycling when done) it'd be much more akin to just being aware of it, not traumatized or stopped by it (generally speaking).

Again, this is why they wouldn't ever be "shaken" or "stunned."

Hell, Space Marines can, if I recall correctly, clot normally traumatic injuries in moments.

Space Marines rule. Everyone knows that.

You're arguing from a point of modern-day realism. That's not accurate to 40k.

Well yes, I think it makes a good starting point.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Starweavers are the Harlequin Transport.
Venoms are the Dark Eldar Transport.
They are NOT Jetbikes.

Then why lump them in with Vypers???

And losing a limb is traumatic... To a HUMAN.

Humans aren't unique in that respect, but I guess that argues against Tyranids being treated like human tank crews, doesn't it?

Orks can be decapitated and their head sewn onto a new body, and be fine.

But that's only because it's funny.

I can't imagine a Carnifex has pain receptors in the same way humans do-they need to be aware of if they're taking damage, but given that they lack human essentials like a digestive system (they're purpose-made for a battle, and go into the digestive pools for biomass recycling when done) it'd be much more akin to just being aware of it, not traumatized or stopped by it (generally speaking).

Again, this is why they wouldn't ever be "shaken" or "stunned."

Hell, Space Marines can, if I recall correctly, clot normally traumatic injuries in moments.

Well yes, Space Marines rule. Everyone knows that.

You're arguing from a point of modern-day realism. That's not accurate to 40k.

Well yes, I think it makes a good starting point.

Because Vypers are also Vehicles, at least according to the rules.

Humans aren't unique in that respect, but they're in the minority in 40k.

And no, it's because Orks are ridiculously durable. Like a Space Marine is. Or a Necron. Or a Tyranid. It's humans and Tau that are the real squishy ones.

A Carnifex can be knocked off balance, requiring it to get back into position before firing effectively. A Carnifex can have important, but not vital, organs destroyed and need a few moments to regenerate them. A Carnifex can have a limb entirely severed or blown off, rendering it inoperable for the battle.
Your lack of imagination isn't universal.

Not gonna comment.

And while it's an okay starting point, it's NOT a good ending point. But your posts are ending there.

 JNAProductions wrote:
And while it's an okay starting point, it's NOT a good ending point. But your posts are ending there.

Let's set aside the question of how much pain a Carnifex feels and get back to the core issue, which you did not address.

Tanks have a quantifiable level of protection that by design renders certain portions of them harder to damage than others. You can measure it to the millimeter and it's often certified as "proof" against specific weapons.

We don't have to parse shoulder vs claw, shin vs foot, it's right there in the specs. Representing this within the game would add a bit of fluff, some additional tactical twists, so why not include it?

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
And while it's an okay starting point, it's NOT a good ending point. But your posts are ending there.

Let's set aside the question of how much pain a Carnifex feels and get back to the core issue, which you did not address.

Tanks have a quantifiable level of protection that by design renders certain portions of them harder to damage than others. You can measure it to the millimeter and it's often certified as "proof" against specific weapons.

We don't have to parse shoulder vs claw, shin vs foot, it's right there in the specs. Representing this within the game would add a bit of fluff, some additional tactical twists, so why not include it?

Why add it JUST for vehicles, though?
Put another way, how would you differentiate Infantry from Monsters?

Respectfully, Toussant, I feel like you've been avoiding addressing a lot of the main points we've been bringing up.

What is it about an exocrine that you think makes its gun impossible to destroy while a vindicator's gun is not? And while we're at it, why do you feel the other vehicle damage results I've listed in previous posts couldn't apply to monsters?

In what ways (that deserve rules representation) do you think a maulerfiend (AKA the "dinobot") behaves differently than a dinosaur? And conversely, why do you seem to be under the impression that a sluggish, chonky thing like an exocrine is somehow better at changing its facing than a vindicator or predator?

You keep saying some variation on this:

I think living things and machines are fundamentally different, and rules should convey this.

But any specific examples you've given of how they differ haven't held up to scrutiny, and you seem to be (probably unintentionally) moving the goalposts.

You've presented the notion that they're different because multiple crewmen make them better at multitasking. We countered with examples of monsters that multi-task equally well or better and asked why you think explicitly single-crew vehicles would benefit in the same way you claim multi-crew vehicles should.

You've presented the notion that big, chunky monsters are using their apparently very fast reaction times to turn on a dime and cover their weak spots despite people pointing out that this seems unlikely for many monsters and probably quite possible for many vehicles.

Now you're saying that monsters actually can't spin around to defend against flanking enemies, but apparently this inability to protect themselves the way you previously described doesn't mean they should be more vulnerable when being flanked the way you think vehicles should be.

Respectfully, if we take a step back and breathe, is it possible that you just really latched onto the notion that you like vehicle rules without examining that preference in-depth, and now you're digging your heels in out of reflex rather than because you're giving the points we're making a fair shake?

If so, it's fine. We've all been that guy. But it really feels like you're stretching to avoid having to change your mind.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Why add it JUST for vehicles, though?
Put another way, how would you differentiate Infantry from Monsters?

Because I don't have the design specs for the monsters. As I said, tank armor is quantifiable in a way flesh, bone and chitin are not. Biological creatures are also fluid in a way steel (or plasteel or whatever) are not.

As you pointed out, a carnifex can be knocked back. That actually absorbs some of the energy, resulting in less damage. A tank just stands there and takes it. Shoot a limb on a monster, and it will probably flap or swing, perhaps cause the round to merely graze the area.

There is no physical reaction possible on the glacis plate. It either takes the shot or doesn't. Hit a tank on the side armor with appropriate ammunition and the vehicle's designers will tell you it is toast.

But if you shoot an animal, who knows?

I recall a time I shot at a deer. It fell down! Awesome! Except that it was reacting to the noise of the shot. It jumped up and bounded away.

Tanks can't do that. You either see the tracer miss, or ping off of it or if you are lucky there goes the turret!

Animals can react, because it's their bodies, their skin. Tanks just sit there and take it until the crew pull back or bails out - or dies. That's part of what makes them cool - that mechanical callousness.

Demons and such can be callous, but it's in a different way. That's all I'm saying.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Why add it JUST for vehicles, though?
Put another way, how would you differentiate Infantry from Monsters?

Because I don't have the design specs for the monsters. As I said, tank armor is quantifiable in a way flesh, bone and chitin are not. Biological creatures are also fluid in a way steel (or plasteel or whatever) are not.

As you pointed out, a carnifex can be knocked back. That actually absorbs some of the energy, resulting in less damage. A tank just stands there and takes it. Shoot a limb on a monster, and it will probably flap or swing, perhaps cause the round to merely graze the area.

There is no physical reaction possible on the glacis plate. It either takes the shot or doesn't. Hit a tank on the side armor with appropriate ammunition and the vehicle's designers will tell you it is toast.

But if you shoot an animal, who knows?

I recall a time I shot at a deer. It fell down! Awesome! Except that it was reacting to the noise of the shot. It jumped up and bounded away.

Tanks can't do that. You either see the tracer miss, or ping off of it or if you are lucky there goes the turret!

Animals can react, because it's their bodies, their skin. Tanks just sit there and take it until the crew pull back or bails out - or dies. That's part of what makes them cool - that mechanical callousness.

Demons and such can be callous, but it's in a different way. That's all I'm saying.

What are the specs for a Land Raider?
What are the specs for the psycoactive Wraithbone of a Wave Serpent?
What are the specs for a Living Metal Ghost Ark?

And real world animals react like that. Again-this is 40k.

Also, I'm quite certain that you can potentially shoot the antler off a deer or the legs off of a bear or whatever given the right weapon. I'm also quite certain that a deer's ability to freak out and duck doesn't make it immune to having its limbs damaged (immobilized, weapon destroyed) or being killed outright by a single shot (wrecked).

I'm also fairly certain we don't have firm knowledge of how well a dreadnaught can be "knocked back" or the exact physics involved in shooting a laser cannon at an alien hover tank.

As I said previously, all units in the game only do 3 things, move, shoot, fight.

If you can conceive of an attack blowing off a tanks gun, then you can also conceive of that same attack blowing off a wraithlords gun.

If you can conceive of an attack immobilising a tanks track, you can also conceive of it immobilising a carnifexes leg.

The only thing stopping you doing this is a subjective standard youve trained yourself in, not because it can't happen.

Every scif tv, movie or anime with big monsters has no problem with their weapons and locomotion being damaged by attacks. It's only wilful obstinacy that prevents you doing the same with magic/space monsters in a game...

 Wyldhunt wrote:

I think living things and machines are fundamentally different, and rules should convey this.

But any specific examples you've given of how they differ haven't held up to scrutiny, and you seem to be (probably unintentionally) moving the goalposts.

There are two discussions going on which are criss-crossing each other.

One is the notion of having rules for side/rear armor. I like it because it is both realistic and creates tactical depth. But...

For the record: If you want animals to have side/rear armor, cool.

The biggest issue I see is that trying to get a template for some of these things is going to be really hard, particularly where you have twisted torsos and other dynamic poses. Square bases would be the only solution I see with the "front" clearly indicated.

Previous editions did not do this for that reason, but the OP was calling back to mechanic that did exist, wondering if it could be recreated.

As to the organic vs machine thing, this is a HUGE deal philosophically, and massive amounts of sci-fi focuses on the conflict between the two (see also Avatar, Star Trek, etc.). Part of the background on 40k is that the Imperium is totally paranoid regarding pure computing power, and seeks to create a biological interface with it, thus highlighting the difference.

Thus, if you are into that massive amount of sci-fi that examines this, it is natural to feel that this should be reflected in a gaming environment.

However, there seem to be people who feel that it's irrelevant for a variety of reasons, which is fine, and that's probably why I play a different version of the rules where this division was more profound. Fewer factions, greater differentiation.

My purpose in responding to the OP was simply to express support for more realistic vehicle rules, which I enjoy, but things obviously got a bit off topic.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

There are two discussions going on which are criss-crossing each other.

One is the notion of having rules for side/rear armor. I like it because it is both realistic and creates tactical depth. But...

For the record: If you want animals to have side/rear armor, cool.

Fair enough I've written and replied to various suggestions for how to make that work earlier in the thread. We can probably set that aside for now.

As to the organic vs machine thing, this is a HUGE deal philosophically, and massive amounts of sci-fi focuses on the conflict between the two (see also Avatar, Star Trek, etc.). Part of the background on 40k is that the Imperium is totally paranoid regarding pure computing power, and seeks to create a biological interface with it, thus highlighting the difference.

Thus, if you are into that massive amount of sci-fi that examines this, it is natural to feel that this should be reflected in a gaming environment.

Respectfully, I believe this is another moving of the goal post, and I think it's worth pointing that out for the sake of the discussion. (Not trying to attack you about it.) It sounds here like you don't believe there's some in-universe reason for monsters to be treated differently from vehicles. You don't seem to think that an exocrine's gun is indestructible or that a carnifex can never have its legs blown off. Rather, it sounds like you want them to be different purely for the sake of being different. Or rather, for the sake of vaguely reflecting a specific theme sometimes explored by imperials specifically.

In which case... I just don't agree that that's a good enough reason to complicate the rules of the game with bespoke vehicles-only mechanics. If you're going to mechanically represent blasting the arm off a dreadnaught, you should mechanically represent blasting the arm off a carnifex.

My purpose in responding to the OP was simply to express support for more realistic vehicle rules, which I enjoy, but things obviously got a bit off topic.

That's fine. I don't think anyone here wants to rake you over the coals. It's just that the arguments you've been making haven't really held up, and it's hard not to respond to that sort of thing.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
And the meltagunners from behind it? It can just rotate to deflect those, at the same time? You're suggesting that Carnifexes, Tyrannofexes, Tervigons, etc can just INSTANTLY rotate at all times to make sure their carapace is in the right place constantly?

No, I'm not saying that, and I think you know that.

Your literal words were "a carnifex might see the flash of artillery and turn to offer its thickest part of carapace" - and how does it do that when attacked from all sides? Are you implying that a Carnifex can do that for all attacks? If not, then why is a Carnifex not also vulnerable to flanking?

It takes far more time and effort for a tank to reverse its facing than a living creature that has legs, hips, a waist joint, etc. Indeed, this is why mechanical walkers exist.

So how does a Stormsurge, while anchored into the ground, have a faster reaction time than a Starweaver, which can freely float and manoeuvre? How does an Exocrine, a creature LESS intelligent than the gun it carries, outmanoeuvre a Pirahna?

You're not responding to the examples you're being offered. You seem to think that ALL tanks are these lumbering slow treaded things (like Imperial vehicles), and that all Monsters react like deer and humans - but there's so many cases where that simply isn't true, and you're not addressing them.

I would also posit that a tank crew - especially one that is buttoned up - has far less situational awareness than a monster.

Not all vehicles crews ARE buttoned up. All Dark Eldar vehicles, many Ork buggies and trukks, Land Speeders, etc are all open topped. Many, like Repulsors, have sensors dotted all around them. They'd have MORE awareness than many monsters, simply because they aren't limited to one pair of eyes.

And that something like a Vyper or Starweaver or Venom can't jink and dodge to ensure its hull is where it needs to be? That a Stormsurge, even while anchored to the ground, can just pivot and rotate without any issues?

Jetbikes aren't tanks, neither are aircraft. They are vehicles with their own aspects and historically their armor rating was the same all-round for this reason.

Vypers, Starweavers, and Venoms aren't jetbikes or aircraft. They're vehicles. You're arguing that vehicles should function differently to Monsters, not just tanks. Their armour may have been all around, but they still played like tanks, not like monsters, because they used the same AV system, the same Damage table, and subject to the same restrictions. Meanwhile, "monsters" like Riptides, Stormsurges, and Wraithknights, which were mechanical/psychomechanical in nature, functioned like Monsters, and were incapable of being stunned, immobilised, or having their weapons destroyed.

You wanna bring historical into this? Explain those.

That's laughably abstracted, more so than any issue between "biological" and "mechanical".

No, it's more detailed. Abstraction is where tanks and carnifexes both have the same stat system as infantry.

Good job I didn't argue for that.

That's not to say I'm tied to "only Wound counters, nothing more" - instead, have Monsters ALSO suffer from a damage table. They can be shaken, stunned, immobilised, etc. Why is that a problem for you?

If you want to add that level of detail, feel free to do it. However, severing a limb is a far more traumatic event for a living being than merely having a sponson weapon rendered in operable, or a bogie wheel blown off. Tank crews have been known to bail out of damaged vehicles unscathed. Losing an arm or leg tends to be a bit more significant, and the game should reflect that.

Carnifexes are literally biological battering rams. You don't think the Hive Mind would have figured out a way to make them more resilient to pain? Old One Eye LITERALLY lost an eye and is still going. Space Marines can be bisected and survive. Orks can be beheaded and get sewn together. I think you're speaking from a far too human perspective here.

But what about at range? In responding to changing battlefield circumstances and retaliatory fire? You know - the same treatment you compared between a being which is in intimate connection with its externals, and one that has to use a control interface?

If you want to add that layer of detail in order to allow flank hits on tanks, I'll allow it.

Simple. Have tanks and monsters use the same rules. Done.

I think it useful to go back to the core contention, which is that tanks are generally designed to have their strongest armor on the front. Because they can only carry so much weight, the sides and rear are armored to a different standard.

So are Carnifexes. Biological battering rams.

Animals are different. While there are points where they are more and less vulnerable, they can rotate their facing more easily and - this is the key part - will often do so without any deliberate intent. It also takes more time for the tank commander to issue the order and the driver to carry it out, engage the transmission and hit the accelerator than it does for a monster to decide to turn back and forth.

But can these animals do so CONSTANTLY, from all angles, against all vectors of attack? I mention again the meltagunners and artillery attacking a Carnifex. Can the carnifex face ALL directions to show it's strongest carapace? You claimed that's not what you argued, but you repeat it here.

The point remains that machines are purpose-built to a quantifiable penetration standard. Frontal armor stops main guns, side/rear are only immune to small arms. I don't think animals are set up that way.

Earth animals, no. But a Carnifex, *literally built like a biological battering ram*? Yes, absolutely. You want to mention a "quantifiable penetration standard"? Measure the thickness of it's chitin!

You are using real life examples. 40k isn't.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Starweavers are the Harlequin Transport.
Venoms are the Dark Eldar Transport.
They are NOT Jetbikes.

Then why lump them in with Vypers???

Vypers are also vehicles. Check the rules.

And losing a limb is traumatic... To a HUMAN.

Humans aren't unique in that respect, but I guess that argues against Tyranids being treated like human tank crews, doesn't it?

Huh??? No-one's saying the tyranid is like a tank crew. They're saying that the tyranid is like the TANK.

I can't imagine a Carnifex has pain receptors in the same way humans do-they need to be aware of if they're taking damage, but given that they lack human essentials like a digestive system (they're purpose-made for a battle, and go into the digestive pools for biomass recycling when done) it'd be much more akin to just being aware of it, not traumatized or stopped by it (generally speaking).

Again, this is why they wouldn't ever be "shaken" or "stunned."

Enough concussive force will "shake" or "stun" anything. Space Marines on tabletop aren't getting "shaken" or "stunned", but the sheer concussive force of the missile launcher hitting the Rhino affects the tank itself. The Carnifex might not be "injured", but it can still be hit by massive force.

You're arguing from a point of modern-day realism. That's not accurate to 40k.

Well yes, I think it makes a good starting point.

And it's a terrible ending point. We can look at starting points, realise how woefully incapable they are at reflecting 40k's myriad of OTT living battering rams, daemonically imbued constructs, and psychoactive mechs, and say "hmmm, what's this CLOSER to in real life"?

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:Let's set aside the question of how much pain a Carnifex feels and get back to the core issue, which you did not address.

You're the one serially not addressing points. Like the overlaps between things that are biological, but act more like tanks, the mechanical things that act more like infantry, how biological things (according to you) apparently can't lose limbs, and how mechanical things are the only ones that have defined arcs or vulnerability and can be stunned/shaken.

Tanks have a quantifiable level of protection that by design renders certain portions of them harder to damage than others. You can measure it to the millimeter and it's often certified as "proof" against specific weapons.

We don't have to parse shoulder vs claw, shin vs foot, it's right there in the specs. Representing this within the game would add a bit of fluff, some additional tactical twists, so why not include it?

You can with Tyranid chitin too. Meanwhile, you care to tell me how think Repulsor armour is? The strength of Wraithbone? The thickness of the armour on a Forgefiend?

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Why add it JUST for vehicles, though?
Put another way, how would you differentiate Infantry from Monsters?

Because I don't have the design specs for the monsters. As I said, tank armor is quantifiable in a way flesh, bone and chitin are not. Biological creatures are also fluid in a way steel (or plasteel or whatever) are not.

You don't have the design specs for Repulsors. You don't have the design specs for wraithbone. You don't have the design specs for daemonic steel.

As you pointed out, a carnifex can be knocked back. That actually absorbs some of the energy, resulting in less damage. A tank just stands there and takes it. Shoot a limb on a monster, and it will probably flap or swing, perhaps cause the round to merely graze the area.

So you're saying there's NO WAY a Carnifex could ever lose a limb, because it can always flap and swing, and it's immune? Again, going back to the meltagunners and artillery aiming at a Carnifex - the fex ALWAYS knows how to dodge every attack so it never loses limbs or gets stunned?

Animals can react, because it's their bodies, their skin. Tanks just sit there and take it until the crew pull back or bails out - or dies. That's part of what makes them cool - that mechanical callousness.

And what happens when you have "vehicles" made out of psychoactive material or when that's also literally the skin of the creature (Daemon engines, Eldar wraith constructs)? What happens when you have animals that can't react fully to everything (an Exocrine, a Tyrannocyte)? What happens when you have creatures that are designed to absorb the hits like a tank, because they are the faction's equivalent to a tank (Carnifexes).

You fixate on the idea that a tank is ONLY X, and a monster is ONLY Y, but you ignore all the overlaps and cases where one is more like the other. You continue to propagate the idea that monsters can't be immobilised, stunned, have their limbs removed, or be put down by a critical single shot, and that all vehicles are these slow, lumbering hulks. Please, you're not actually responding to the examples being raised here.

How would you differentiate between a Stormsurge and Knight? A Carnifex and Forgefiend? A Wraithlord and Dreadnought? A Tyrannocyte and Drop Pod?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Wyldhunt wrote:

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:
As to the organic vs machine thing, this is a HUGE deal philosophically, and massive amounts of sci-fi focuses on the conflict between the two (see also Avatar, Star Trek, etc.).

Respectfully, I believe this is another moving of the goal post, and I think it's worth pointing that out for the sake of the discussion. (Not trying to attack you about it.) It sounds here like you don't believe there's some in-universe reason for monsters to be treated differently from vehicles. You don't seem to think that an exocrine's gun is indestructible or that a carnifex can never have its legs blown off. Rather, it sounds like you want them to be different purely for the sake of being different. Or rather, for the sake of vaguely reflecting a specific theme sometimes explored by imperials specifically.

In which case... I just don't agree that that's a good enough reason to complicate the rules of the game with bespoke vehicles-only mechanics. If you're going to mechanically represent blasting the arm off a dreadnaught, you should mechanically represent blasting the arm off a carnifex.

My purpose in responding to the OP was simply to express support for more realistic vehicle rules, which I enjoy, but things obviously got a bit off topic.

That's fine. I don't think anyone here wants to rake you over the coals. It's just that the arguments you've been making haven't really held up, and it's hard not to respond to that sort of thing.

Agreed on all fronts! There's nothing personal here, but points are being raised, and you're simply not addressing them. Carnifexes being immune to having their limbs shot off, certain creatures not neatly fitting in between vehicle and monster (daemon engines), certain mechanical things being treated as monsters when they're closer to vehicles, etc.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
And while it's an okay starting point, it's NOT a good ending point. But your posts are ending there.

Let's set aside the question of how much pain a Carnifex feels and get back to the core issue, which you did not address.

Tanks have a quantifiable level of protection that by design renders certain portions of them harder to damage than others. You can measure it to the millimeter and it's often certified as "proof" against specific weapons.

We don't have to parse shoulder vs claw, shin vs foot, it's right there in the specs. Representing this within the game would add a bit of fluff, some additional tactical twists, so why not include it?

Why add it JUST for vehicles, though?
Put another way, how would you differentiate Infantry from Monsters?

Monsters will generally have way more wounds and higher toughness. But you can also bring back the old Monster unit type which had a bunch of its own rules. Back in 5th edition, monsters ignored difficult terrain, could fire 2 weapons per turn instead of 1, their melee attacks ignored armor saves, and their melee attacks rolled 2D6 to penetrate vehicles.

So they were definitely a lot more than just infantry with more toughness and wounds.

Honestly, 5th edition was peak 40k.

5th was my first and least favorite edition of 40k. Yes, even worse than 6th and 7th.

Sergeant, I think you're being a little needlessly harsh on the Commissar. I understand where he's coming from and I like the premise of having vehicles suffer differently than creatures, but it's clear the problem is there's too much variation, too many exceptions between boxy tanks at one end and nimble alien monsters at the other.

Maybe a modern game would use 4 keywords for categories: nimble vs rigid and biological vs mechanical. That way Imperial tanks would all be rigid and mechanical and could use facings and the classic vehicle status chart.
40k's modern era of everything just being toughness and wounds is certainly more streamlined of course.

I also see you're asking why monsters would be immune to a crossfire mechanic if vehicles aren't, but I don't think anyone said that. Any sort of enemy would be vulnerable to crossfire except I suppose a higher dimensional being. +1 for daemons and c'tan.

5th edition MC rules were quite limited. Lack of damage table for MCs, lack of Damage as a characteristic. You couldn't suppress them, you couldn't cripple them or flank them. Either you could kill MCs or you couldn't and that made them quite binary in terms of balance. Either they were squishy and easy to kill or hard targets that pretty much shrugged off everything and not a lot of middle ground.

 Dominar_Jameson_V wrote:
Sergeant, I think you're being a little needlessly harsh on the Commissar. I understand where he's coming from and I like the premise of having vehicles suffer differently than creatures, but it's clear the problem is there's too much variation, too many exceptions between boxy tanks at one end and nimble alien monsters at the other.

Politely, if the first points I had made had been actually discussed and the inconsistencies in their argument acknowledged, I wouldn't have doubled down.

I also see you're asking why monsters would be immune to a crossfire mechanic if vehicles aren't, but I don't think anyone said that. Any sort of enemy would be vulnerable to crossfire except I suppose a higher dimensional being. +1 for daemons and c'tan.

Less "crossfire" and more that, to deal with a vehicle, one imagines circling around to strike the weak point while its front is distracted by the heavier guns. Meanwhile, Monsters can apparently just whip around and deflect the attacks coming at them at all angles, even if their front plate/chitin is their strongest.

It's less a "crossfire" mechanic, and more a "facings" mechanic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tyran wrote:
5th edition MC rules were quite limited. Lack of damage table for MCs, lack of Damage as a characteristic. You couldn't suppress them, you couldn't cripple them or flank them. Either you could kill MCs or you couldn't and that made them quite binary in terms of balance. Either they were squishy and easy to kill or hard targets that pretty much shrugged off everything and not a lot of middle ground.

You ended up with a situation where the lascannon that could instakill a Land Raider did as much damage to a Carnifex as a bolter, with no chance of an instant kill, no chance of stunning or disrupting the target. And sure, while the bolter had NO luck against the Land Raider, can we really say it had any meaningful luck against the Carnifex?

A volley of bolters could reliably do 1-2 wounds vs a Carnifex.

This is where some of the newer ideas could be useful in an older edition. Adding multiple wounds to certain weapons is a good idea. So a lascannon could still do its D6 wounds to a large target, so it would be useful against both fleshy wound creatures as well as vehicles.

Perhaps you could also mix in a defensive anti-multiple wound ability to monsters as well. Like "Tough X: This special rule reduces incoming multi-wound attacks by X amount to a minimum of 1". This would give monsters some resistance to say some weaker multi-wound attacks but not the big ones.

Like say a Carnifex could have Tough 2 which would reduce the wounds taken by a multi-wound attack by 2 to a minimum of 1. So a Lascannon with a D6 multiplier would be able to cause between 1 and 4 wounds to a carnifex. This would reduce the effectiveness of some lower end multi-wound attacks. Like say a Bolter could have a wound stat of 2, which would effectively be negated by a Carnifex but useful against lesser multi-wound opponents.

This would also be a way to give special characters some extra durability beyond their normal wounds by capping the amount of wounds a single attack could do. Best part is it would be a very flexible rule you could tweak to suit different creatures with differing amounts.

 Grey Templar wrote:

This is where some of the newer ideas could be useful in an older edition. Adding multiple wounds to certain weapons is a good idea. So a lascannon could still do its D6 wounds to a large target, so it would be useful against both fleshy wound creatures as well as vehicles.

Note that this is what we have currently in 10th edition. So if you basically just handled things the way 10th edition does but also bolted on AV as a vehicles-only mechanic, you'd basically just have what we have now but in a less-elegant fashion. And if you brought back the vehicle damage chart, then we're back to asking why you can blow the arm off a dreadnaught but not a carnifex.

Perhaps you could also mix in a defensive anti-multiple wound ability to monsters as well. Like "Tough X: This special rule reduces incoming multi-wound attacks by X amount to a minimum of 1". This would give monsters some resistance to say some weaker multi-wound attacks but not the big ones.

Like say a Carnifex could have Tough 2 which would reduce the wounds taken by a multi-wound attack by 2 to a minimum of 1. So a Lascannon with a D6 multiplier would be able to cause between 1 and 4 wounds to a carnifex. This would reduce the effectiveness of some lower end multi-wound attacks. Like say a Bolter could have a wound stat of 2, which would effectively be negated by a Carnifex but useful against lesser multi-wound opponents.

This would also be a way to give special characters some extra durability beyond their normal wounds by capping the amount of wounds a single attack could do. Best part is it would be a very flexible rule you could tweak to suit different creatures with differing amounts.

You're basically describing the damage reduction/wound cap mechanics that were popularized in 9th (I think wave serpents may have done it first in 8th), and then subsequently dropped in 10th. If you want big things to last longer before dying, you can just increase their Wounds; no need to deal with the fallout of making bolters D2 and then adding extra rules to walk back that change.