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.

We've done Power Weapon roll of 6 = Glance to vehicles for years. Works fine.

Okay, lets give Power Weapons more flavor, if that's what everyone wants. Let's say that normals close combat attacks (i.e.; a Guardsmen or Marine running at a tank with a knife or his fists) has no effect on vehicles with the Tank description (because it's a tank, they're tough and designed to resist at a minimum small arms fire and 'soft' shrapnel, so things like pounding fists and stabbing knives probably wouldn't cut it for damage). However, if the model has a weapon that ignores Armor Saves, it CAN effect Tanks.

Note: Vehicles without the Tank description are vulnerable to non-PW attacks.

A: Its not my idea, why should I play test it?
B: I don't like the idea, so why should I play test it?
C: I have much better things to do then playtest Dakka users " I think dis would RoxXor!!!!1!!111!" rulesets.

jp400 wrote:A: Its not my idea, why should I play test it?
B: I don't like the idea, so why should I play test it?
C: I have much better things to do then playtest Dakka users " I think dis would RoxXor!!!!1!!111!" rulesets.

You felt compelled enough to voice your opinion on the subject (and obviously have the time for that), I assumed you'd be open to testing out something to change up the flow and maybe present some new strategies. I suppose I was wrong in thinking that you'd like to expand your experience and be open to suggestions. *Shrug*

Kevin949 wrote:

jp400 wrote:A: Its not my idea, why should I play test it?
B: I don't like the idea, so why should I play test it?
C: I have much better things to do then playtest Dakka users " I think dis would RoxXor!!!!1!!111!" rulesets.

You felt compelled enough to voice your opinion on the subject (and obviously have the time for that), I assumed you'd be open to testing out something to change up the flow and maybe present some new strategies. I suppose I was wrong in thinking that you'd like to expand your experience and be open to suggestions. *Shrug*

I am going to assume neither of you have play tested whatever idea it is you two are bickering over?

But first, let us not start flaming each other. Second, it is not the responsibility of anyone to play test an idea they do not like, in fact it is the person who says it is a good idea that should be play testing it before they say "this is how it should be."

@ H.M.B.C. : Not wanting to beat a dead horse, as I have said this in the past, but from what I have heard from you about your group's version of WH40k makes it very difficult to say any one rule is "fine" in the greater context of a more standard game.

Skinnattittar wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:

jp400 wrote:A: Its not my idea, why should I play test it?
B: I don't like the idea, so why should I play test it?
C: I have much better things to do then playtest Dakka users " I think dis would RoxXor!!!!1!!111!" rulesets.

You felt compelled enough to voice your opinion on the subject (and obviously have the time for that), I assumed you'd be open to testing out something to change up the flow and maybe present some new strategies. I suppose I was wrong in thinking that you'd like to expand your experience and be open to suggestions. *Shrug*

I am going to assume neither of you have play tested whatever idea it is you two are bickering over?

But first, let us not start flaming each other. Second, it is not the responsibility of anyone to play test an idea they do not like, in fact it is the person who says it is a good idea that should be play testing it before they say "this is how it should be."

@ H.M.B.C. : Not wanting to beat a dead horse, as I have said this in the past, but from what I have heard from you about your group's version of WH40k makes it very difficult to say any one rule is "fine" in the greater context of a more standard game.

Well, seeing as I play necrons I kinda already play test this on a regular basis which is why I initially suggested the "power weapons glancing on a 6" idea. Never said that's how it should be. Also, I never put it on him as a responsibility, it was just a suggestion. If he doesn't want to, obviously he doesn't have to. I simply find it in bad form to say that an idea is a bad one and to voice it to others but be completely unwilling to actually try it while still voicing your opinion on it.

Oh well, welcome to the internet amirite?

Skinnattittar wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:

jp400 wrote:A: Its not my idea, why should I play test it?
B: I don't like the idea, so why should I play test it?
C: I have much better things to do then playtest Dakka users " I think dis would RoxXor!!!!1!!111!" rulesets.

You felt compelled enough to voice your opinion on the subject (and obviously have the time for that), I assumed you'd be open to testing out something to change up the flow and maybe present some new strategies. I suppose I was wrong in thinking that you'd like to expand your experience and be open to suggestions. *Shrug*

I am going to assume neither of you have play tested whatever idea it is you two are bickering over?

But first, let us not start flaming each other. Second, it is not the responsibility of anyone to play test an idea they do not like, in fact it is the person who says it is a good idea that should be play testing it before they say "this is how it should be."

@ H.M.B.C. : Not wanting to beat a dead horse, as I have said this in the past, but from what I have read from you about your group's version of WH40k makes it very difficult to say any one rule is "fine" in the greater context of a more standard game.

Yup, and I don't plan to any time soon. And as already stated, its not my place to playtest HIS proposed rule. He asked for feedback, I gave it. End of story.

Kevin949 wrote:

Skinnattittar wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:

jp400 wrote:A: Its not my idea, why should I play test it?
B: I don't like the idea, so why should I play test it?
C: I have much better things to do then playtest Dakka users " I think dis would RoxXor!!!!1!!111!" rulesets.

You felt compelled enough to voice your opinion on the subject (and obviously have the time for that), I assumed you'd be open to testing out something to change up the flow and maybe present some new strategies. I suppose I was wrong in thinking that you'd like to expand your experience and be open to suggestions. *Shrug*

I am going to assume neither of you have play tested whatever idea it is you two are bickering over?

But first, let us not start flaming each other. Second, it is not the responsibility of anyone to play test an idea they do not like, in fact it is the person who says it is a good idea that should be play testing it before they say "this is how it should be."

@ H.M.B.C. : Not wanting to beat a dead horse, as I have said this in the past, but from what I have heard from you about your group's version of WH40k makes it very difficult to say any one rule is "fine" in the greater context of a more standard game.

Well, seeing as I play necrons I kinda already play test this on a regular basis which is why I initially suggested the "power weapons glancing on a 6" idea. Never said that's how it should be. Also, I never put it on him as a responsibility, it was just a suggestion. If he doesn't want to, obviously he doesn't have to. I simply find it in bad form to say that an idea is a bad one and to voice it to others but be completely unwilling to actually try it while still voicing your opinion on it.

Oh well, welcome to the internet amirite?

Thats called haveing an opinion ... And yes, welcome to the Interwebs, you MUST be new here.

Hi all.
Is this a symptom of vehicles having a completley seperate weapon - armour resolution to every other unit in the game?

Poor concepts badly implemented need an awful lot of patches to cover all the gaps dont they?

I belive if ALL units in 40k used the SAME weapon - armour resolution method , alot of the 'bolt on fixes GW use' and the 'more realistic/it makes more sense to...' stuff the gamers ask for would become unecissary.

TTFN

Lanrak wrote:Hi all.
Is this a symptom of vehicles having a completley seperate weapon - armour resolution to every other unit in the game?

Poor concepts badly implemented need an awful lot of patches to cover all the gaps dont they?

I belive if ALL units in 40k used the SAME weapon - armour resolution method , alot of the 'bolt on fixes GW use' and the 'more realistic/it makes more sense to...' stuff the gamers ask for would become unecissary.

TTFN

Well just off the top of my head if you put vehicles on a Strength vs Toughness system a Land Raider or Monolith would have a T 11 so you would need to change the "to wound" chart and figure out how to do glancing vs penetrating.

And vehicles don't need to be easier to kill. That's what made older editions of 40k such slog fests...because we all knew any vehicles on the board were toast as soon as they were spotted.

With the exception of Land Raiders and Monoliths, most vehicles don't stand a chance at surviving the game if your opponent cares to destroy them. A vehicle's greatest adversary is close combat, which is true in real life, no doubt, but since shooting is just as effective, and there are extremely few ways to avoid close combat with a vehicle, short of spending your entire army protecting them.... Well, basically vehicles just don't stand a chance (against competent builds).