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.

Well i saw this Idea on Librarium online and wondered: would you guys have a different oppinion:

 

Your idea is roughly similar to one I posted here a few weeks ago:

www.dakkadakka.com/Forums/tabid/56/forumid/16/postid/118694/view/topic/Default.aspx

 

I personally would prefer a system of Toughness/Wounds/Save for vehicles than the current incarnation, but after doing a thorough set of research I am positively convinced that no sort of current work-around can be achieved short of re-writing every codex.

I believe such a change would therefore have to wait for a new edition of the game. I'm planning to present my idea (tidied up a bit) to Jervis Johnson at this year's Adepticon (so any suggestions you'd like to make to my version would be appreciated).

As for comments on your system:

I don't believe that an arbitrary system of applying Toughness/Wounds/Save based on current Armor values of vehicles can be used. Instead, each vehicle needs to be carefully analyzed and given a proper statline.

For example, almost every vehicle has a rear AV of 10, and would therefore only have a 6+ save. Only a very select few vehicles would be any different. That doesn't sound right! IMO, Space Marine armor saves should be better than IG armor saves which should be better than Ork armor saves, just like in the rest of the army. That way, everything just makes more sense to the player.

Also, I wouldn't personally like to use your system because there are even more charts to remember now. Personally I think any re-design of the system should make it even easier to keep track of what is happening to a vehicle (as I believe my version does).

As for what your system is missing? Well, there are literally hundreds of pieces of wargear that have special rules for affecting Armor Value (grenades are just one exampe). You would have to go through each and every piece of Wargear and write new rules. I started trying to do that and realized it would just be too complicated for any other player to ever remember.

But good luck with wherever you're going with this and I like the way you think!

 

 

*slaps 2nd ed. Dark Millenium to the ground* You Must Not Read From The Book!!!

If people think assault cannons are bad-arsed NOW, they had the same profile as a krak missile in 2nd ed... except that they could have 9 shots... PER TURN.

Oh man, the glory days of plasma grenades sticking around for several turns...of multiple profiles for different shotgun shells...of fixed weapon lists. <wistful>.

Regardless, I think this thread is right on target. A full-scale overhaul of the vehicle rules is in order -- this can fix problems from the obscene number of special rules for the Monolith to the nigh-unkillability of Eldar skimmers and the lack of any compromise between 'slow as dirt' and 'zippy' for other armies.

Has anyone considered re-instating the Moves characteristic for vehicles? With the idea of giving Vehicles infantry-like profiles, their 'unique' movement profile might help to distinguish them. Two ways this could work:

1) A vehicle may move up to its full movement value and fire all main and defensive weapons, one and a half times its movement value and fire one main and all defensive weapons, or twice its movement value and one defensive weapon only.

In this incarnation, a slow tank using might be:

Leman Russ
M T W Sv
6 8 6 4+
Main Weapons: 3 Heavy Bolters, Battle Cannon
Defensive Weapons: Pintel-Mounted Heavy Stubber

Resulting in a tank which, as in the current incarnation, can move up to 12" while sacrificing most shooting capactities.
and a fast tank might be....

Falcon:
M T W Sv
12 7 4 3+/4+
Main Weapons: Pulse Laser, Starcannon
Defensive Weapon: Twin-Linked Shuriken Catapult

Resulting, again, in a similar result to the current system. BUT...it allows for flexibility. Say you think a Vyper should be able to move farther than a falcon while still shooting, you could give it a higher M value -- say, 18, giving it a maximum move of 36" and a shooting move of 18".

The second way would be:

2) A vehicle may move up to 1/2 its movement value and fire all weapons, from 1/2 to 1x its movement value and fire one main and one defensive weapon, from 1x to 1.5x its movement value and fire one main or defensive weapon, from 1.5x to 2x its value and fire one defensive weapon, and from 2x to 2.5x its movement value and fire no weapons.

The upshot of this approach is the added flexibility of multiple categories.

As far as assigning toughness, wounds, etc, I think Yakface's system is right on target. However, I'd like to see some details on how embarking/disembarking/assaulting from/shooting from vehicles would work under his incarnation.

-Adso