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 think this table is currently fine, the only problem I have is that if you shake a transport (let's just say rhino) it doesn't do jack . Besides that, I'm just a horrid damage table roller, although I am good at penetrating rolls.

Chaos frowns upon your new tables.

I like the consolidated tables better than the old separate tables. It makes more sense, a less significant hit does less damage on the damage chart. We don't need damage charts that do different things, when there are really only 6 things that happen to vehicles in 40K, it makes sense to have them all in one place, not spread across two tables where multiple die-roll values lead to the same result. In the current system, each point higher you roll means something, which makes it more interesting/exciting - at least to me.

lol we could just kill this thread, i already admitted a while back that upon further thinking new damage tables would have to be complicated to get more accurate results. and the current tables really are fine.

I think we should use this one:

1 - Wrecked
2 - Wrecked
3 - Wrecked
4 - Wrecked
5 - Asplosion!
6 - Second Wind, no damage to vehicle. How do you feel now, huh, big man? Rolled a six and you got NOTHIN'!

Put that in your pipe and take a glancing hit.

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:* Open topped rules: I don't think they should give +1 on the table, it doesnt make much, if any, sense to have a bolter wreck a Raider with its first shot only because the "Top was open". I would love to here the explination of how a spacemarine(normal attack) is able to wreck a Basilisk with a single punch due to the fact that it is open topped.

He doesn't have to punch it, it's open topped. He can get on, eat the crew and spike the gun. Kill a truck or raider by strafing the crew. I'd love to hear the explanation of why boys on a pick-up can shoot my grunts but not get shot back.

Also, the new tables are fine. The old tables where the lascannon would insta-gib the driver of a tank causing it to slew off in a random direction and then explode were obviously too awesome.

I do miss the Calidus Assassin being able to stab the driver of a Leman Russ with her phase sword.

Ah, 2nd ed.

RxGhost wrote:I do miss the Calidus Assassin being able to stab the driver of a Leman Russ with her phase sword.

Ah, 2nd ed.

Notice how the Assassin is able to "stab the driver" not "stab the tank, punching through the armour to disembowel the driver".

Ah, C'Tan phase technology

C'tan always skip the ???? phase and go right to profit.

Soup and a roll wrote:

He doesn't have to punch it, it's open topped. He can get on, eat the crew and spike the gun. Kill a truck or raider by strafing the crew. I'd love to hear the explanation of why boys on a pick-up can shoot my grunts but not get shot back.

You kinda answered your own question...

The reason you shouldnt be able to "Get on and eat the crew" is...

Whats to stop the Crew from shooting/punching you off the boat? If units get the open topped bonus in melee, you would think it would make more sense for them to be directally fighting the Passengers of the ship as well...

Yeah, well, it's not their turn. Then they can shoot and punch the boat all they want.

Which edition of 40k are you playing where the opponent doesnt do anything whilst involved in an Assault?

The one that doesn't allow embarked passengers to fight during my Assault Phase.

You know, 5th edition.

Hey, is it still crazy snowy over in the DC?

Yes, Fed Gov had a 2 hour delay and news says the snow on the ground should last till March 8th at the earliest.

As far as 5th Edition Embarked passengers. Thats where my problem lies.

Say I had an Archon squad on a raider, and some space marine tried to jump on my raider to punch it (aka take advantage of the +1 to opentopped in melee) my question is... why does not the Archon nor any of his incubi try and stab that marine off of the boat?


Also, to pre-emptively answer the inevitble "Why cant I shoot the guys inside the boat if it is open-topped" I actually support that option, however I also believe the troops inside should recieve a 4+ coversave.

EX:

Space marines vs Dark Eldar

Raider carrying 10 man Warrior(Raider) squad

Tac Marines can choose to shoot at either the AV10 Raider(in melee) or fire upon the Troops inside (which those troops automatically get a 4+ coversave)

In Melee, the Tac marines can either Melee the Raider at AV 10 (no open topped) or choose to "Engage the troops inside" letting the 10 Warriors strike at the squad but also allowing the sqaud to split attacks between the squad of 10 DE Warriors and the AV 10 transport (with Open topped +1 to table).

This would also apply to things such as a Chimera which has opened it's fireing points!

Non-transport open-topped vehicles (such as a basilisk or a Ravager) however can always be struck in Melee as if they were open-topped (+1) as they don't really have a crew to defend them (at least, they don't have a crew with a statline).

Again, those are only "ideas" for changing Open-Topped rules to fit more LOGICALLY which IMO are the only rules that MIGHT need tweaking. (Inb4 "BUT GW IZNT LOJEK)

I think a lot of what goes on in the man v. vehicle match ups (at least as far as the rules are concerned) is simply an abstraction to produce a reasonable result and move the game along.

I think it would be cooler if you could melee/shoot guys embarked in a transport and they could melee/shoot back. Doesn't Asdrubel Vect have rules that pretty much make that happen?

RxGhost wrote: Doesn't Asdrubel Vect have rules that pretty much make that happen?

Kinda, he doesn't really have wounds so you can't kill the Incubi/Him onboard. But as far as melee, he has an equal number of attacks to the guys on board (kinda) and a pretty decent weaponskill. The only problem is that he fights in CC like a "Dreadnaught" not a "walker" so technically his rules are broken!

In fairness, nothing in the DE codex works at all as nothing has a unit type.

Gwar! wrote:In fairness, nothing in the DE codex works at all as nothing has a unit type.

Totally agree, which is why I find it funny when some people say the Dark Eldar are LESS deserving of a Codex update then many of the other Armies out there.

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:

Gwar! wrote:In fairness, nothing in the DE codex works at all as nothing has a unit type.

Totally agree, which is why I find it funny when some people say the Dark Eldar are LESS deserving of a Codex update then many of the other Armies out there.

Don't get me wrong, they are due for an Update. Sadly GW felt trying to make money off Weeaboos was more important than updating Dark Eldar, Inquisition or Space Wolves.

Of course, rumour has it that 2010 will see new Dark Eldar, as new model moulds are being produced, and as we know, GW doesn't like releasing models outside of a new codex release to drive the sales.

And of course, 90% of DE players I know do NOT want an update anyway. No other army can fit close to thirty (yes, THIRTY) R32 S8 AP2 Lance weapons that are BS4 in 1500 points

I would like to see a single chart (5th ed) but expand the modifiers and change it to a bell curve chart say based on 2d6. The one dislike I have to 5th ed is the total premium on melta weapons like lascannons, krak missiles are total poor relations for AT work other than their range and base strength - they punch through but tend to do nothing.

Modifiers like -

+1 Open topped
+(5-Wpn AP)
-1 if AP - on weapon firing.
-2 Glancing Hit

This leaves the MM and melta as king of the hill but puts a lascannon as superior to a krak missile in more than just +1 Str. Also makes an AP2 Pulse Laser superior to the krak missile and similar things like that.

The way the chart gets layed out would need to be worked out but obviously lean the stun to the lower range and expode to the high end. How it goes in between we can argue about all day.

AP modifiers do not make any sense if applied in that manner imo, as AP can mean different things. Just because something can rip though Flak Armour (AP5) does not necessarily mean it has any discernible effect against tanks.

You would be better off just re-introducing individual Modifiers for every weapon.

DAaddict wrote:I would like to see a single chart (5th ed) but expand the modifiers and change it to a bell curve chart say based on 2d6. The one dislike I have to 5th ed is the total premium on melta weapons like lascannons, krak missiles are total poor relations for AT work other than their range and base strength - they punch through but tend to do nothing.

Modifiers like -
+(5-Wpn AP)

So then if a Sunstorm squadron were to fire its 6man focused beam it would have a 10inch blast of Auto Explosions?

AP1 so 5-1 =+4

Str D so +1 more on the table (as well as auto Pen)

So you roll on the Penetrating Hit table with a +5 modifier (aka always 6)

Even without, this effectively makes Melta Weaponry (almost) ALWAYS Wreck/Explode

IDT this would work too well... (Granted, as a Thousand Sons player, I would LOVE to wreck AV10 with bolters!)

Gwar! wrote:Sorry, couldn't help myself.

On Topic: I think the current table is just fine, it doesn't need to go back to multiple tables.

@Scarboy: The only change I would make is if that the "1/2" speed Result should be changed to a "-50% of max speed" result, so that 2 such results is an immobilisation.

No worries. A South Park reference is welcome at any time.

That "-50% speed" was my intent, I probably just typed it unclear. 2nd result should be auto-immobilized, for sure. Mostly, I was going for a single table with a few more dynamic results.

Skarboy wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Sorry, couldn't help myself.

On Topic: I think the current table is just fine, it doesn't need to go back to multiple tables.

@Scarboy: The only change I would make is if that the "1/2" speed Result should be changed to a "-50% of max speed" result, so that 2 such results is an immobilisation.

No worries. A South Park reference is welcome at any time.

That "-50% speed" was my intent, I probably just typed it unclear. 2nd result should be auto-immobilized, for sure. Mostly, I was going for a single table with a few more dynamic results.

But wouldn't that just result in an exponential decrease in speed?

Say your max speed is 18". -50% of that is 9" max, -50% of that is 4.5", -50% of that is 2.25", -50% of that is 1.125", -50% of that is 0.5625", etc...

Thats why I said change it to -50% of Maximum speed

Though I suppose the wording should be "-50% of the starting speed of the vehicle" to prevent people claiming that the new, lower speed is now the Maximum speed and getting the exponential decrease you mention.

Of course, if we were writing with GW authenticity in mind...

Gwar! wrote:Thats why I said change it to -50% of Maximum speed

Though I suppose the wording should be "-50% of the starting speed of the vehicle" to prevent people claiming that the new, lower speed is now the Maximum speed and getting the exponential decrease you mention.

Of course, if we were writing with GW authenticity in mind...

Or basic rules reading. If you decrease the speed of a vehicle then the farthest/fastest it can move automatically becomes the Maximum speed. Also, what is the "starting speed" of the vehicle? Can we include "Flat Out" on roads, as they are not normally part of the vehicle's "starting" speed, but a benefit gained from moving on roads. What about other modifiers or abilities? There are some things that "boost" the "speed" of vehicles. What was it the Eldar have? Star Engines?

So you roll on the Penetrating Hit table with a +5 modifier (aka always 6)

I'd arghue it would infact be impossible to roll a 6 with a +5. How on earth are you rolling 1 on 2d6? It would be a result between 7 and 17...

@Fling
I thought his modifiers were directed at the vehicle table not at the roll to pen. If he meant towards the Roll to pen, then yeah, it would be very different.

I thought his modifiers were directed at the vehicle table

Yes they are and as he said the vehicle table would be soemthing you roll 2d6 on so would have to have results from 2-12 (depending on modifiers you may choose to extend this).

2D6 doesn't work because of the funky Bell Curve. You'd be better off swapping to a D10