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.

I've been thinking about this idea for a while, and have decided that I don't like it.  Some of the problems are in the extreme power swing from MC to vehicles.  I don't deny that they should be better balanced, but I think those changes would be overwhelming.

The other problem is that the rules for them are too complicated.  In all wargames, you have to find a balance between realism and playability (generally from complicated rules).  One always comes at the expense of the other.  In this case, we gain quite a bit of realism, at the expense of a lot of playability (through very complicated rules).

My counterproposal is two-parts.  A change to weapons to deal with multi-wound models, and a change to the vehicle damage tables.  Both of them add some realism at the expense of playability (also through more complicated rules).  These proposed changes address what I see as the problems: 1) Multiwound critters are slightly too durable, while 2) vehicles are _too_ vulnerable under 4th Edition.

 

First: doing more than one wound to multi-wound models.  I like Yakface's idea of the critical hit, but it seems too complicated.  My suggestion is much more basic.  Any model wounded by a ranged weapon that is heavy (instead of pistol, rapid fire, or assault) and counts as a main weapon for a vehicle (strength 7 or better) automatically inflicts two wounds for each unsaved wound (in the manner of C:Tyranid Implant Attack) to multiwound models.

Second: making vehicles more durable in comparison with similarly costed MC.  I don't like going away from AV and damage tables because all of the points are more or less "balanced" around them.  Instead of changing vehicle stats, change the glancing and penetrating tables to be based on 2d6, to look something like the ones I've kludged in below.  Ordnance weapons roll on the penetration table but add +1 to both dice.  Rolls to damage open topped vehicles add +1 to both dice for either table.  In no case can you go above a roll of a 6 on the glancing table or a roll of 7 for the penetration table.  The holofield forces the attacker to roll 3d6 and use the two smallest.  Venerable dreadnaughts can force a reroll of one of the 2d6.

 Glancing Table: 

  d6 \  d6               1               2               3               4               5               6

       1               shaken    shaken    shaken    shaken   shaken      stun

       2               shaken    shaken    shaken       stun       stun           stun

       3               shaken    shaken       stun         stun      wpn dst    wpn dst

       4               shaken      stun           stun     wpn dst    immob      immob

       5                shaken      stun      wpn dst   immob     immob     destroyed

       6                   stun        stun      wpn dst     immob  destroyed  destroyed

 

Penetration Table: 

  d6 \  d6               1               2               3               4               5               6               7

       1               shaken    shaken    shaken    shaken     stun         stun        wpn dst

       2               shaken    shaken       stun       stun       wpn dst    wpn dst    immob

       3               shaken      stun           stun         stun      wpn dst    immob   destroyed

       4               shaken      stun           stun     wpn dst    immob    destroyed  destroyed

       5                  stun       wpn dst   wpn dst   immob  destroyed  destroyed  anh

       6                  stun      wpn dst    immob  destroyed  destroyed    anh         anh

       7              wpn dst     immob destroyed destroyed    anh            anh           anh

shaken = Crew Shaken, stun = Crew Stunned, wpn dst = Weapon Destroyed, immob = Vehicle Immobilized, destroyed = Vehicle Destroyed, anh = Vehicle Annihilated

 

 Note: please forgive my poor format-fu.  I knew it would be bad, but didn't realize it would be this bad.

I like this much better than other things that have been proposed in this thread! The "heavy weapons deal 2 wounds if unsaved" is an elegant solution. Presumably "ordnance" and "ordnance barrage" weapons would deal 2 wounds also.

Only problem is Tyranid MC weapons, all of which are classified as 'assault'. It seems to doubly nerf the Nids to make most weapons that hurt the TMCs doubly effective, and also deny the Nids the same benefit from their own weapons.

Perhaps any weapon carried by an MC would count as 'heavy' for this purpose? Or else we just go back to a strength-defined category (ie any S8+ weapon deals 2 wounds for each failed save).

That kind of negates the whole 'nids in synapse are immune to instant death' thing though...hmm...seems the Nids get the short end of the stick no matter what.

Deleted

I think the best solution that I didn't see on the thread is to use AV instead of Toughness, then have a list of subsystems which are randomly damaged, so that its possible one guy is still left guns blazing or so that the vehicle just dies strangely. I would include things such as breathing apparatus, drivetrain, weapons, deployment systems, etc.

Thread necromancy is not something I usually indulge in, but the premise of this thread had me thinking back to an early copy of the Citadel Journal, which had proposed a similar ruleset. After some serious digging in my archives, I found the particular copy of that Journal which had sparked the memory, and I'd like to present what was written then, in comparison to what Yakface has written now.

Firstly, some background on the article itself. The cover of the CJ the article was in has vanished, so I don't know which Journal number it is, but it was back when the journal was still A4 sized and the copyright on the index page is 1995, so it's pretty old. The article was written by Jervis Johnson, and it seems to have been written during W40k 2nd Ed.! finally, the article only covers alternative vehicle damage, as it is part one of a two-part article. (If anyone can find it, the article is called "Adapting the Mechanic stuff". I'm fairly certain I don't have the next CJ in sequence.)

Like Yakface, JJ reccomended that vehicles have a statline - toughness, Wounds and an armour save. Also like Yakface, JJ reccomended this system because vehicles kept blowing up far too quickly (so why in the name of the Almighty wasn't it translated into 3rd ed? Office politics perhaps?)

Where JJ differs is in how critical hits are handled. JJ proposed that instead of making a critical wound roll on a to-wound of a "6", you roll a dice for every wound caused on a vehicle (ergo, if you cause 3 wounds, you roll 3 dice). For each dice that comes up a "6", you then roll on the "catastrophic damage table". On a 1-3, a crewman is hit. on a 4-5, the vehicle starts to burn (next turn, roll a dice. 1, the fire goes out. 2-3, fire keeps burning. 4-6, vehicle explodes). On a 6, the vehicle explodes, and is wrecked.

JJ also introduced the idea of "vulnerable locations". A vehicle could have 1 or more vulnerable parts on it. Thing like an exposed crewmember, tracks or the weapons themselves! Instead of firing at the vehicle as a whole, the model (or squad) firing at the vehicle could opt to target a vulnerable location, provided they had a line-of-sight to it. As this was 2nd Ed, to-hit modifers were still in play, and aiming at a vulnerable location incurred a -1 penalty. If the part was hit, wounded and failed it;'s save, something bad would happen to the vehicle. for example, hitting the tracks would immoblise the vehicle.

Since someone already dug up the corpse, and waved the wand...

Instead of wounding rolls of 6 inflict a critical wound, why not save rolls of 1. That way you don't have to differentiate making saves (especially invulnerable saves) vs critical wounds. Of course this means you always have to roll saves, even when they are negated... hmm...

Otherwise the system is good, a tad bit neater than the one i posted a while back. Ok, a bunch neater, but i post from work so thinking things out doens't always happen.

So did anyone try to pass this up to JJ at the con?

 

Hey Max,

Thanks for posting that. It's interesting stuff. Either I read that article way back in the day and subconsciously catalogued it (a possibility) or great minds just think alike.

 

Unfortunately, I didn't present this to Jervis at Adepticon like I had planned to. He turned out to be way more company line than Jes had been the year before and I never really got talking to him on a personal level (which is how I would have liked to bring this up).

More importantly, when I heard his seminar I realized that a system like this is almost certainly never going to happen. They're trying to get both Fantasy and 40k to a happy place where the only changes are minor ones. They're unlikely to ever throw out all the codices and start fresh again like they did with 3rd edition 40k and it would be impossible to implement a major overhaul of the vehicle system while the codices remain in play.

Now realizing that Jervis had (at least one point) thought this kind of idea was a good one means that either: A) he's given up on the idea for some reason or B) realizes there's no pratical way to implement it into the game anymore (I guess 'C' could be that he's forgotten about it, I suppose).

Either way, I figured my bringing it up could only lead to a "that's a good idea I'll keep it on the back burner for the future" kind of answer.

 

This would work better with a d10 system as there could be a greater spectrum of saves and such then. My main gripe with the current system is how a Monsterous Creature can get hit with a lascannon and keep on killing but a landraider can simply go BOOM with a lucky shot. Also the 40K statlines will have to break the celing of 10 for some vehicles

1) maybe you can make Machine-Spirit/Necron Monotheism have a "feel no pain" type save along with their save.

2) Skimmers moving fast can benefit from the turboboost rule

3) Vehicles explode on a critical wound of 6 or to the likes of that with a D6 radius and wounds on a +4 with the ap of the vehicle's save.

4) Poison Attacks dont work on vehicles. Someone will think of that one

5) the Gauss effect always wounds vehicles just like in the wording

6) Snipers wound a vehicle on a +6 regardless of toughness and never causes a critical wound