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.

Thanks for the file.
I've played around a bit with it to see how my raiders match up, seems they are a bit more survivable in 6th unless there is a large amount of shots directed at them and then they are less survivable.

Yep. Shootier, killier, but when they get shot at properly, overall weaker.

Wrakkar wrote:Yep. Shootier, killier, but when they get shot at properly, overall weaker.

The way it should be IMO. I like it better now.

It does make more sense, why should shooting a tank's tracks make the main gun fall off? At what point does a bolter round cause the entire hull to collapse? It's more sensible now.

Vehicles really aren't destroyed by lots of built up damage though, it's typically a catastrophic hit or the crew panicking and GTFO'ing. You don't shoot a tank with X number of RPG's and then it just falls apart, one manages to penetrate something and touch off something volatile and it goes up. Shells can bounce off the front all day long and the tank isn't going to break or fall apart unless something punches through and scatters lots of little metal bits into little fleshy bodies.

Vaktathi wrote:Vehicles really aren't destroyed by lots of built up damage though, it's typically a catastrophic hit or the crew panicking and GTFO'ing. You don't shoot a tank with X number of RPG's and then it just falls apart, one manages to penetrate something and touch off something volatile and it goes up. Shells can bounce off the front all day long and the tank isn't going to break or fall apart unless something punches through and scatters lots of little metal bits into little fleshy bodies.

Agreed but lets say you ake 5 back to back on the same area od steel you are more likely to sufer catastrophic hit is more the idea and a round is sorta like 5-10 sec of battle

Bluewulf wrote:

Vaktathi wrote:Vehicles really aren't destroyed by lots of built up damage though, it's typically a catastrophic hit or the crew panicking and GTFO'ing. You don't shoot a tank with X number of RPG's and then it just falls apart, one manages to penetrate something and touch off something volatile and it goes up. Shells can bounce off the front all day long and the tank isn't going to break or fall apart unless something punches through and scatters lots of little metal bits into little fleshy bodies.

Agreed but lets say you ake 5 back to back on the same area od steel you are more likely to sufer catastrophic hit is more the idea and a round is sorta like 5-10 sec of battle

Right, but the hull points don't really portray that at all. I can take 2 in the rear arc, and one straight to the front, none of them may penetrate the armor, but the one from the front shook the tank up a little bit and now it just falls apart apparently

Its over all structureal intigurity as its is lost

But tanks don't work that way is what I'm saying

yea they kinda do you hit anything enough it breaks ....ANYTHING

I will DL the sheet as soon as I get on my desktop. Sounds very interesting!

Vaktathi wrote:But tanks don't work that way is what I'm saying

38,000 years in the future, they DO work that way. Trust me, I know. I built a time machine out of copper coils, selenium vitamins, tin foil and a boiled potato.

Joe Mama wrote:

Vaktathi wrote:But tanks don't work that way is what I'm saying

38,000 years in the future, they DO work that way. Trust me, I know. I built a time machine out of copper coils, selenium vitamins, tin foil and a boiled potato.

Michael J. Fox wants his Delorean back.

My problem, I guess, is how the Hull Points worked. I'd be totally fine if 0 Hull Points meant all glances became penetrating hits, because my Land Raiders would still have a chance to do the same thing they did in 5th Edition: shrug off Crew Shaken and Crew Stunned rolls for the couple of turns they need to deliver their sweet Terminator goodness to the front lines. However, now my opponent just needs any combination of four glancing/penetrating hits to reduce my Land Raider to a smoking pile of cover saves. He might as well not even bother with the chart.... getting my Land Raider to 0 Hull Points is how it's going to go down most of the time, and it'll rarely take more than a turn to get it there.

Blackraine wrote:My problem, I guess, is how the Hull Points worked. I'd be totally fine if 0 Hull Points meant all glances became penetrating hits, because my Land Raiders would still have a chance to do the same thing they did in 5th Edition: shrug off Crew Shaken and Crew Stunned rolls for the couple of turns they need to deliver their sweet Terminator goodness to the front lines. However, now my opponent just needs any combination of four glancing/penetrating hits to reduce my Land Raider to a smoking pile of cover saves. He might as well not even bother with the chart.... getting my Land Raider to 0 Hull Points is how it's going to go down most of the time, and it'll rarely take more than a turn to get it there.

While this is true, I think it's still really hard to get 4 glances or pens on a Land Raider. In addition, there is nothing your opponent can do to stop your land raider from shooting or moving flat out. I think your terminators will still get there.

It's "really hard", in that it generally involves all of the heavy weapons in the army shooting at it over the course of a single turn. The problem is that, generally speaking, all of the heavy weapons in the army will be able to shoot at it that turn, as there really won't be anything else on my side of the table that they'll want to shoot at. When I used to play tournaments (around the 4th edition/5th edition transition), I played a Deathwing army that consisted of 3 Land Raiders with 3 squads of Deathwing (plus characters) in them at 1750 points (I think there was a Dreadnaught involved as well, if I'm not mistaken). I don't think I had a single tournament game without one of those Land Raiders dropping on the first turn. Now, however, all the options of taking the Land Raider out that existed in 5th Edition (i.e. penetrating shots) are still there, but they can also get 4 glances... or even 2 penetrating hits and 2 glances. Heck... they can shake me 4 times and blow up my vehicle.

When it comes down to it... my Land Raiders are less surviveable. High rolls on the penetrating chart still wreck it identically to how they used to, but now low rolls on the penetrating chart have the ability to cumulatively wreck it (which they didn't before), and glances (which couldn't do anything to my Land Raider in 5th Edition) can now cumulatively wreck it as well, out of the same pool as the Penetrating hits. And since the methods (i.e. dice rolls) to get a glancing or penetrating hit have not changed, but the unfavorable results of those glancing and penetrating hits have increased, I fail to see how Land Raiders are somehow more difficult to destroy. The only thing that's changed... the only arguement that could be made toward my surviveability increasing... is that high end glances will now take a few more shots to wreck me. In 5th, two immobilizes (so two 6's on the damage table off of a glance) would do it, whereas it takes 4 glances period to do it now... but statistically, it will take you more than 4 glances to get two 6's on average anyway, so it's a moot point.

Ok. I like the information here, but I would like to stress this again.

It's not just because vehicles can now be wrecked MUCH EASIER with glances.

It's not just because ML's had virtually no statistical chance of wrecking a LR in 5th. In 6th, it's not so safe.

Is it harder to actually disable a vehicle? Yes.

It's WHEN coupled with the penalties that vehicle damage has on passengers that armor is not going to be as good as it was in 5th. Not to mention trying to disembark from a transport, assault vehicle or not, for assault purposes.

Does this mean that rhinos/razorbacks a bad buy? NO. They are way to cheap. It just means they are not near the bargain they were in 5th. Is this good? Only time will tell.

And what I think will be a potential catastrophic development waiting in the wings, is when tank traps get introduced into the game, currently rumored through white dwarf.

I think it's just all part of an evil marketing scheme from gw that's similar to the potential blow up from fliers when flakk missiels finally make it into the game.

By 'really hard' do you guys mean 'One turn of shooting from a unit of basic Necrons with no unit upgrades of any kind'?

sounds great id dl it but i don't have excel...

thanks anyway Grugknuckle

next time on on a pc with excel ill have a look

Nice work man, appreciate the effort. For some reason it doesn't illicit a desire to spit on you in anyway.... weird. I guess I'm missing some sort of cultural barrier, oh well. Nicely done.

I personally really appreciate the effort Grugknuckle. Hope you don't mind but I'm gonna link your thread here onto my GK codex review/primer thread to spread the word as it were.

(if you care to read it, it's here: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/460371.page)

As I've been putzing with this thing, I've noticed no way to predict Gauss effect. Could you put that in a future version?

Also missing rending. That could be a big factor too.

Blackraine wrote:
It's "really hard", in that it generally involves all of the heavy weapons in the army shooting at it over the course of a single turn.

Agreed. But it's still not guaranteed to take down the land raider. And that's one turn where your opponent's heavy weapons are not shooting at the rest of your army. Take advantage of that. Furthermore, the probability of actually getting a penetrating hit on a Land Raider has not changed - it's still difficult. If they use all of their heavy weapons to get say 3 glances on your land raider and no pens, then your LR can still move flat out and shoot snap shots or move 12" and disembark it's passengers. And one more thing - it's easier to get cover in 6th. Only 25% of the model needs to be obscured instead of 50%.

When it comes down to it... my Land Raiders are less survivable.

Also agreed. They are *less* survivable now. But in 5th Ed, they were almost indestructible, so now they are a little less than indestructible? They are still very survivable and more effective while they are alive. Let's not all freak out and start thinking that, "Less Survivable" somehow means "useless". This is not the case.

Lostchaplain wrote:
By 'really hard' do you guys mean 'One turn of shooting from a unit of basic Necrons with no unit upgrades of any kind'?

This is really a separate issue. Yes, Necron 'glance'-flayers are now the uber-shiz choice of the next generation. Don't let them get within 12" of your 250 point metal box. The probability of them glance-wrecking a LR with only 10 shots is not zero, but it is dramatically less than with 20 shots.

That said, when I design an all-comers list for 6th Ed, I'll still be bringing vehicles.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

frothy loins wrote:Nice work man, appreciate the effort. For some reason it doesn't illicit a desire to spit on you in anyway.... weird. I guess I'm missing some sort of cultural barrier, oh well. Nicely done.

Thanks man! I'm glad you like it. If I ever meet that guy in person, I've got an inverted heel-hook reserved just for him.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sudojoe wrote:I personally really appreciate the effort Grugknuckle. Hope you don't mind but I'm gonna link your thread here onto my GK codex review/primer thread to spread the word as it were.

(if you care to read it, it's here: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/460371.page)

Hey Awesome! The more people who see it the better.

As I've been putzing with this thing, I've noticed no way to predict Gauss effect. Could you put that in a future version?

Also missing rending. That could be a big factor too.

Actually it's already there. If you want to simulate guass weapons, all you have to do is set the weapon strength to the armor value minus 6. That way, penetrating hits are impossible and the ONLY way to destroy the vehicle is by glance-wrecking.

So for example, if you want to see the stats on 10 Necron warriors rapid firing their guass weapons at your Vindicator (AV 13), set

Armor = 13
Hull points = 3 ( I think, but check the book )
Ballistic Skill = 4
Weapon Strength = 7
AP = 5
Cover / Jink = 7

When I did this,
10 shots gives 9.06% to wreck your vehicle
20 shots gives 38.66% to wreck your vehicle.

On the other hand if allow for the Necrons to move 6" and take snap shots, then you set the same as above but with BS = 1. In this case the results are

10 shots gives 0.22% to wreck your vehicle
20 shots gives 1.72% to wreck your vehicle.

Now suppose your vehicle has cover but the necrons are at full BS 4. To do this, set Cover / Jink to 5 and BS to 4. Then the results are

10 shots gives 3.29% to wreck your vehicle
20 shots gives 18.13% to wreck your vehicle.

If the Necrons are shooting snap shots AND your vehicle has cover then the odds are very slim.

10 shots gives 0.07% to wreck your vehicle
20 shots gives 0.57% to wreck your vehicle.

So the moral of the story is - keep necron warriors at least 18" away from your vehicles and use cover if possible.

Here is another trick you can do with this spread sheet. If you want to know what the odds are of losing just one hull point, then set the hull points to 1. Play with this and see what you come up with.

Awesome! Thank you for the replies, didn't think about doing that to simulate Gauss. Is there a way to do rending with it? Like set the modified strength to +3 or something?

Also, what does the Mods 1 do? number of models?

Wow thats pretty in depth. Nice work there Grug. And ignore Testify, you've obviously put a lot of work into this so he's just being unnecessarily bitchy.

This is an incredible piece of work and it gives a really good look at how effective thing are in comparison to 5th Ed
Thanks

sudojoe wrote:Awesome! Thank you for the replies, didn't think about doing that to simulate Gauss. Is there a way to do rending with it? Like set the modified strength to +3 or something?

Also, what does the Mods 1 do? number of models?

The "Mods" box are the modifiers to the roll on the vehicle damage table. The computation of these mods are different for 6th Ed and 5th Ed, so you'll see different formula on the two sheets. For example, in 6th Edition you get

+2 to the damage roll if the weapon is AP1
+1 to the damage roll if the weapon is AP2
+1 to the damage roll if the vehicle is open topped
-1 to the damage roll if the weapon is AP -

For 5th Edition, the modifiers are different.

I can code up the rending, but it will take me a while. I would need to add an IF , THEN statement and put in a new conditional probability. I *might* get to it today, but more likely it will be next week.

Thanks very much, this is tremendously useful and I appreciate you taking the time to create, post and refine this. Spit in my mouth any day you please . . .

Grugknuckle wrote:

sudojoe wrote:Awesome! Thank you for the replies, didn't think about doing that to simulate Gauss. Is there a way to do rending with it? Like set the modified strength to +3 or something?

Also, what does the Mods 1 do? number of models?

The "Mods" box are the modifiers to the roll on the vehicle damage table. The computation of these mods are different for 6th Ed and 5th Ed, so you'll see different formula on the two sheets. For example, in 6th Edition you get

+2 to the damage roll if the weapon is AP1
+1 to the damage roll if the weapon is AP2
+1 to the damage roll if the vehicle is open topped
-1 to the damage roll if the weapon is AP -

For 5th Edition, the modifiers are different.

I can code up the rending, but it will take me a while. I would need to add an IF , THEN statement and put in a new conditional probability. I *might* get to it today, but more likely it will be next week.

AP- Is no longer -1.

Sasori wrote:

AP- Is no longer -1.

You're right, but it was for 5th edition so I had to take that into account for the 5th Ed worksheet.

This is a great tool, but I do think it contains an error. The interaction between wrecked and explodes is a little more complicated on the 6th table than you have modeled. You count explode results in your wrecked probability. And the probability of an Explodes should begin to decrease with the number of shots, especially considering that a penetrating hit will cause a Wrecked result if the vehicle only has one hull point remaining. Overall, it does make a big difference.

The net result of 6th is that it's easier to wreck a vehicle with concentrated fire. Missile Launchers are much weaker overall. And of course, with glances no longer rolling on the damage table, higher AV vehicles will more often be able to move and shoot than they could in 5th.