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

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

It's for balance.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Infantry Damage is normally - removed from the table.

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

 Stux wrote:
It's for balance.

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

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

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

That's true.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think degrading profile should not affect BS.

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

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

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

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

-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, no.

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

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

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

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

...

Did that happen often?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is bad logic.

 Stux wrote:

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

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

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

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

 Stux wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Warhammer 40K Wound Trackers

SG

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

 Elbows wrote:

 Stux wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Apologies


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