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.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

That leaves more questions than it answers

Then ask away.

If you're looking for a blanket formula to apply to existing units, it can't and frankly shouldn't be done. If you're confused about the concept, I'm happy to elaborate.

 Blacksails wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

That leaves more questions than it answers

Then ask away.

If you're looking for a blanket formula to apply to existing units, it can't and frankly shouldn't be done. If you're confused about the concept, I'm happy to elaborate.

It can be done with minor tweaks like removing stupid MCs (Riptide, Stormsurge, DreadKnight, etc.) and making them walkers. Make certain guns do additional wounds to MCs and make AP5-6 weapons unable to harm vehicles.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

That leaves more questions than it answers

Then ask away.

If you're looking for a blanket formula to apply to existing units, it can't and frankly shouldn't be done. If you're confused about the concept, I'm happy to elaborate.

It can be done with minor tweaks like removing stupid MCs (Riptide, Stormsurge, DreadKnight, etc.) and making them walkers. Make certain guns do additional wounds to MCs and make AP5-6 weapons unable to harm vehicles.

Which then raises questions of which are MCs and which are walkers (wraith constructs?), and which guns do additional wounds, how, and adjusting their balance, and justifying AP5 and 6 weapons as unable to harm and balancing them appropriately.

 Blacksails wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

That leaves more questions than it answers

Then ask away.

If you're looking for a blanket formula to apply to existing units, it can't and frankly shouldn't be done. If you're confused about the concept, I'm happy to elaborate.

It can be done with minor tweaks like removing stupid MCs (Riptide, Stormsurge, DreadKnight, etc.) and making them walkers. Make certain guns do additional wounds to MCs and make AP5-6 weapons unable to harm vehicles.

Which then raises questions of which are MCs and which are walkers (wraith constructs?), and which guns do additional wounds, how, and adjusting their balance, and justifying AP5 and 6 weapons as unable to harm and balancing them appropriately.

We all know the who the fake MCs are: Riptide, Castellan robot, Stormsurge, Wraithknight, Wraithlord, Dreadknight...

Which guns? Lance, Melta, Armourbane, Ordinance, Primary weapon, Probably S10

AP5 and 6 weapons are usually carried by the rank and file. I shouldn't be able to shoot through a rhino with a bolter or a scatterlaser because they are low armour penetration weapons. Why would a glance from a bolter or a scatterlaser hurt rhino?

Why shouldn't a glance from S6 weaponry hurt a lightly armoured vehicle? It should at the very least affect it in some way. I don't see how a S5 AP3 gun should be allowed to hurt a Rhino, but a S6 AP6 one shouldn't. It also affects krak grenades, which hurts a lot of armies last ditch anti-tank.

Why should S10 get extra damage? What about S9, that's pretty strong too, normally reserved for dedicated anti-tank guns like Lascannons. Why should armourbane do additional wounds to MCs when we already have fleshbane for that representation? Same thing for all the others. You'd just make MCs that much weaker if they're affected by all the USRs that deal extra damage in addition to all the anti-vehicle USRs.

Fake MCs could probably get to a generally agreed upon consensus, but it raises the question of why not have a single unifying mechanic for all large gribblies. As my first post pointed out, there a numerous benefits.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:


Which guns? Lance, Melta, Armourbane, Ordinance, Primary weapon, Probably S10

Ordanance maybe, Str10 maybe, but the others? First off primary weapons are too common to be able to do so much damage to a mc, secondly fleshbane is already there to be the armourbane of mc's.

Personally I don't think you should start giving weapons the ability to remove multiple wounds otherwise things like daemon princes would only be able to take two hits. No 200-300pt model should be able to be killed in two shots.

 mrhappyface wrote:


Personally I don't think you should start giving weapons the ability to remove multiple wounds otherwise things like daemon princes would only be able to take two hits. No 200-300pt model should be able to be killed in two shots.

Which, funny enough, is what can theoretically happen with vehicles, which is why I propose they adopt the MC rules to prevent that.

 Blacksails wrote:
Why shouldn't a glance from S6 weaponry hurt a lightly armoured vehicle? It should at the very least affect it in some way. I don't see how a S5 AP3 gun should be allowed to hurt a Rhino, but a S6 AP6 one shouldn't. It also affects krak grenades, which hurts a lot of armies last ditch anti-tank.

Why should S10 get extra damage? What about S9, that's pretty strong too, normally reserved for dedicated anti-tank guns like Lascannons. Why should armourbane do additional wounds to MCs when we already have fleshbane for that representation? Same thing for all the others. You'd just make MCs that much weaker if they're affected by all the USRs that deal extra damage in addition to all the anti-vehicle USRs.

Fake MCs could probably get to a generally agreed upon consensus, but it raises the question of why not have a single unifying mechanic for all large gribblies. As my first post pointed out, there a numerous benefits.

Because STR and AP get conflated in GW's bs system. AP 6 means that it can't penetrate a frickin flak vest on a guardsmen. (The fact that the vest only functions 33% of the time is irrelevant here) So it can totally disable a TANK. Sure.

 Blacksails wrote:
Why shouldn't a glance from S6 weaponry hurt a lightly armoured vehicle? It should at the very least affect it in some way. I don't see how a S5 AP3 gun should be allowed to hurt a Rhino, but a S6 AP6 one shouldn't. It also affects krak grenades, which hurts a lot of armies last ditch anti-tank.

Lets say I have an air cannon and I fire a bowling ball at 100mph. Now that bowling ball would kill a human but it wouldn't do squat to a vehicle with reinforced armour. Ap3 represents a gun that shoots through power armour, which mind you, is extremely durable to small arms fire. So if your gun can shoot through that, it can shoot through a vehicle. Krak grenades are also Ap4 so nice try.

Why should S10 get extra damage? What about S9, that's pretty strong too, normally reserved for dedicated anti-tank guns like Lascannons. Why should armourbane do additional wounds to MCs when we already have fleshbane for that representation? Same thing for all the others. You'd just make MCs that much weaker if they're affected by all the USRs that deal extra damage in addition to all the anti-vehicle USRs.

Or we can get rid of the MCs that aren't MCs and then we toss the idea of multi-wounding out the window.

Fake MCs could probably get to a generally agreed upon consensus, but it raises the question of why not have a single unifying mechanic for all large gribblies. As my first post pointed out, there a numerous benefits.

Why? Because tanks don't have a toughness, they have armour and therefore, are subjected to being different.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blacksails wrote:

 mrhappyface wrote:


Personally I don't think you should start giving weapons the ability to remove multiple wounds otherwise things like daemon princes would only be able to take two hits. No 200-300pt model should be able to be killed in two shots.

Which, funny enough, is what can theoretically happen with vehicles, which is why I propose they adopt the MC rules to prevent that.

Yes, I would love to see a Land raider with a GMC stat line. And you thought riptides were bad.

Land Raiders at least have old school weapons that don't really hurt. WKs have D-cannons.

Martel732 wrote:

Because STR and AP get conflated in GW's bs system. AP 6 means that it can't penetrate a frickin flak vest on a guardsmen. (The fact that the vest only functions 33% of the time is irrelevant here) So it can totally disable a TANK. Sure.

Then what does a S10 AP- weapon mean? Under this theoretical system, we'd have a weapon that would deal multiple wounds (potentially, if failed armour save) against a giant MC, but could do quite literally nothing against a sentinel.

Seems odd right?

I get that GW's system is frankly moronic, but we have what we have if we keep most of the core rules the same. That being the case, high strength low AP weaponry may not be penetrating in the conventional sense, but could be boring through something over time, or causing other significant surface damage, or at the very least, potentially shaking the crew or forcing them to abandon the vehicle (another way of looking at the destroyed result is as a morale collapse of the crew, which has real world and in fluff paralells).

Then the scatterlaser needs to get a lot more expensive. Yesterday. Like 25pts a gun expensive. And that's still a bargain.

 Blacksails wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

Because STR and AP get conflated in GW's bs system. AP 6 means that it can't penetrate a frickin flak vest on a guardsmen. (The fact that the vest only functions 33% of the time is irrelevant here) So it can totally disable a TANK. Sure.

Then what does a S10 AP- weapon mean? Under this theoretical system, we'd have a weapon that would deal multiple wounds (potentially, if failed armour save) against a giant MC, but could do quite literally nothing against a sentinel.

Seems odd right?

I get that GW's system is frankly moronic, but we have what we have if we keep most of the core rules the same. That being the case, high strength low AP weaponry may not be penetrating in the conventional sense, but could be boring through something over time, or causing other significant surface damage, or at the very least, potentially shaking the crew or forcing them to abandon the vehicle (another way of looking at the destroyed result is as a morale collapse of the crew, which has real world and in fluff paralells).

"Brother-Captain, our landraider is damaged!"

"Brother... That was just a krak missile, I can assure you-"

"IT SCRATCHED THE PAINT OFF! Abandon all hope!"

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

Lets say I have an air cannon and I fire a bowling ball at 100mph. Now that bowling ball would kill a human but it wouldn't do squat to a vehicle with reinforced armour. Ap3 represents a gun that shoots through power armour, which mind you, is extremely durable to small arms fire. So if your gun can shoot through that, it can shoot through a vehicle. Krak grenades are also Ap4 so nice try.

How does strength fit in all that though? You don't feel like its odd to have a S10 AP- weapon less able to hurt a vehicle than a theoretical S4 AP3 gun?

And yeah, forgot kraks were AP4.

Or we can get rid of the MCs that aren't MCs and then we toss the idea of multi-wounding out the window.

And toss all the other proposals of AP5/6/- also being unable to damage tanks?

Why? Because tanks don't have a toughness, they have armour and therefore, are subjected to being different.

Plenty of MCs have 'armour' by any sci-fi definition you want to use. Hence why they have an armour save. If you think of toughness as 'durability', it makes a whole lot more sense.

Yes, I would love to see a Land raider with a GMC stat line. And you thought riptides were bad.

It'd have a normal MC statline, and be balanced appropriately. It'd certainly make those vehicles a hell of a lot more useful than they currently are.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

"Brother-Captain, our landraider is damaged!"

"Brother... That was just a krak missile, I can assure you-"

"IT SCRATCHED THE PAINT OFF! Abandon all hope!"

Or some poor renegade in a russ who's never seen combat before and doesn't know the full potential of the armour loses his cool after getting pounded by autocannon fire.

Or some Eldar guardian bailing when some minor systems in his Falcon are damaged.

Or some Ork panicking when the blinky lights start flashing and worried the mek has rigged a bomb to explode when they get to the enemy.

Or any other combination of a bazillion possible factors.

This game it not a literal representation of the wording used.

 Blacksails wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

Lets say I have an air cannon and I fire a bowling ball at 100mph. Now that bowling ball would kill a human but it wouldn't do squat to a vehicle with reinforced armour. Ap3 represents a gun that shoots through power armour, which mind you, is extremely durable to small arms fire. So if your gun can shoot through that, it can shoot through a vehicle. Krak grenades are also Ap4 so nice try.

How does strength fit in all that though? You don't feel like its odd to have a S10 AP- weapon less able to hurt a vehicle than a theoretical S4 AP3 gun?

"Brother-Captain, our landraider is damaged!"

"Brother... That was just a high speed bowling ball, I can assure you-"

"IT SCRATCHED THE PAINT OFF! Abandon all hope!"

"This game it not a literal representation of the wording used."

Then use different wording.

Martel732 wrote:
"This game it not a literal representation of the wording used."

Then use different wording.

Which I proposed.

 Blacksails wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
"This game it not a literal representation of the wording used."

Then use different wording.

Which I proposed.

Which was kind of stupid. When does an ork get nervous about anything? If theres a light blinking, he'll smash it if he gets annoyed.

I also proposed some:

"Brother-Captain, our landraider is damaged!"

"Brother... That was just a krak missile, I can assure you-"

"IT SCRATCHED THE PAINT OFF! Abandon all hope!"

 Blacksails wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
"This game it not a literal representation of the wording used."

Then use different wording.

Which I proposed.

Which is fine. I'm not really THAT picky.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:


Which was kind of stupid. When does an ork get nervous about anything? If theres a light blinking, he'll smash it if he gets annoyed.

Not necessarily. Orks still care about krumpin, and they won't exactly be thrilled to know they're going to blow up before they get to chop up some 'umies. An ork isn't afraid to bail at high speed and make his way in on foot. Plenty of reasons for an Ork to abandon a vehicle.

 Blacksails wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:


Which was kind of stupid. When does an ork get nervous about anything? If theres a light blinking, he'll smash it if he gets annoyed.

Not necessarily. Orks still care about krumpin, and they won't exactly be thrilled to know they're going to blow up before they get to chop up some 'umies. An ork isn't afraid to bail at high speed and make his way in on foot. Plenty of reasons for an Ork to abandon a vehicle.

"Boss, oor Trukk is 'urtin'!"

"Calm down, ya git, dat was just a shiny light."

"But da wheels fell off! Abandon all WAAAGH!"

Sure.

*Edit* gak, unless it was expected I carry on in ork speak with more ridiculous scenarios.

Dropped the ball.

 Blacksails wrote:
Sure.

That represented an unrealistic scenerio though. No ork would ever abandon his trukk just because it has no wheels.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
Sure.

That represented an unrealistic scenerio though. No ork would ever abandon his trukk just because it has no wheels.

...If it had no wheels, its not going to be krunpin' anything, therefore, the Orks will get out to go krump things.

Unless you're saying the Orks would just sit around with their green thumbs up their asses.

*Edit* The point is to use your imagination. A destroyed result does not necessarily mean the vehicle is destroyed in the most conventional means possible. It can mean any number of things that renders the vehicle unusable for that particular time frame.

 Blacksails wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
Sure.

That represented an unrealistic scenerio though. No ork would ever abandon his trukk just because it has no wheels.

...If it had no wheels, its not going to be krunpin' anything, therefore, the Orks will get out to go krump things.

Unless you're saying the Orks would just sit around with their green thumbs up their asses.

No one ever said the trukk won't move after it lost the wheels. Do you know how ork vehicles work?

 Tactical_Spam wrote:


No one ever said the trukk won't move after it lost the wheels. Do you know how ork vehicles work?

While certainly a fun image imagining an Ork trukk lose all its wheels to a mine but continue to levitate to the enemy, even Orks are generally bound to some amount of logic. They make things work by believing they work, but they believe it works because it functions in a certain way. A trukk that ran on wheels still needs wheels or some sort of spinning, semi-circular, traction device.

I'm still trying to figure out what S6 AP6 MEANS. GW is so stupid.

 Blacksails wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:


No one ever said the trukk won't move after it lost the wheels. Do you know how ork vehicles work?

While certainly a fun image imagining an Ork trukk lose all its wheels to a mine but continue to levitate to the enemy, even Orks are generally bound to some amount of logic. They make things work by believing they work, but they believe it works because it functions in a certain way. A trukk that ran on wheels still needs wheels or some sort of spinning, semi-circular, traction device.

Imagine that it started flipping end over end until it eventually resembled a ball. Ball-trukk advanced towards the unsuspecting guardline. Trukk stops rolling then all the orks jump out and krump some 'eads.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
I'm still trying to figure out what S6 AP6 MEANS. GW is so stupid.

It represents a high rof laser weapon... Be it in scatter or multi variant.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:


Imagine that it started flipping end over end until it eventually resembled a ball. Ball-trukk advanced towards the unsuspecting guardline. Trukk stops rolling then all the orks jump out and krump some 'eads.

That is more entertaining than my floating trukk idea. Also a fun conversion idea for Orks.

Anyways, point being, its all an abstraction anyways.

 Blacksails wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:


Imagine that it started flipping end over end until it eventually resembled a ball. Ball-trukk advanced towards the unsuspecting guardline. Trukk stops rolling then all the orks jump out and krump some 'eads.

That is more entertaining than my floating trukk idea. Also a fun conversion idea for Orks.

Anyways, point being, its all an abstraction anyways.

Now that being said, do vehicles, if Ap5/6/- can't touch them, need a Ld value? Because I might get scared if people start spamming Lasers at me even if they don't pen my tank.