Switch Theme:

Making vehicles feel like vehicles  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






If we were to go entirely realistic then tanks should be easy to hit and hard to hurt, and infantry should be hard to hit and easy to hurt. Then power armour should be hard to hit & hard to hurt, and terminator armour moreso. But, there's no scope for flex in a system with a maximum of 5 options for "to hit" (2+,3+,4+,5+,6+). If we had a d12 system it would work, but that ain't happening as it means a lot of people need to buy a lot of new dice, and nobody wants that!

More wounds for vehicles is a good thing, as is the increased damage of anti-tank guns, but it will always cause some issues as there's a lot in between infantry and tanks in 40k, and all those 4 wound models will be very sad to see damage 3+d3 weapons out in force!

12,300 points of Orks
9th W/D/L with Orks, 4/0/2
I am Thoruk, the Barbarian, Slayer of Ducks, and This is my blog!

I'm Selling Infinity, 40k, dystopian wars, UK based!

I also make designs for t-shirts and mugs and such on Redbubble! 
   
Made in us
Tough-as-Nails Ork Boy




[/quote Wyldhunt]
Dark Eldar as the opposite extreme should be vulnerable but hard to hit and make the damage stick, which they are from what I've seen at least decent at. Having the various factions on that spectrum would go a good way to differentiate the faction's tanks.


Possibly getting into the weeds, but I'm curious about why you say that. One non-flyer drukhari vehicle has a rule that gives a -1 to hit, which makes it as difficult to hit as any vehicle hiding in the right piece of terrain. Most (all?) of them have mediocre armor but 5+ invulns. Which means they're better at resisting damage from something like a lascannon than a chimera is, but worse at resisting damage from weapons that don't invest in good AP. I guess what I'm getting at is that the "spectrum" you're describing would require other changes to the game that aren't currently supported. You can't really have varying levels of "hard to hit" when to-hit penalties don't stack and there aren't a lot of ways to otherwise modify to-hit rolls. The current rules kind of just make drukhari vehicles more resistant to good AP weapons than chimeras but worse against AP-1 and worse weapons.


I get where you're coming from with all these points, but I feel like they would be horizontal changes rather than improvements and/or would require some other major changes that would have a ton of fallout.


I play Orks, it has been some time since I fought Dark Eldar but I recall regularly hitting their paper boats on 6s the majority of the time. The small Venoms mostly. But that experience, when I could make contact it was devastating but the difficultly of making that contact being my main obstacle. I then learned that like the majority of my issues, applying sufficient Smasha guns to the problem would solve it. But aside from that finding a way to add that flavor into the game would be a nice change IMO. Most Xenos aside from my orks should be harder to hit than Imperial counterparts.

On your later points regarding raising T across the board for the largest tanks I agree with their points but Craftworld Eldar need some serious buffs to their entire Army. Starting from their regular guardians all the way to the top.

This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2021/04/15 12:44:39


 
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran




I think that, rather than looking at which old rules to bring back and how, it would be more productive to look at:
  • the impact those old rules had
  • what you liked about that impact
  • why what you liked is no longer reflected in the rules
  • how to translate that impact into the new rules


  • Rather than talking about bringing back AV, look at the effect AV had on the game, what you liked about it, and how you could bring it back. For example, AV meant that it was impossible for small arms fire to damage most Vehicles, and that Vehicles tended to go from fully functional and undamaged to dead, with no in-between. Both of those have been lost - which did you like, and how could you revive them? Small arms fire would be easy, and could be done on a case by case basis or as a blanket rule; think of something like:
    Tank Armour: When resolving an attack made with a weapon with a Damage characteristic of 1 against a model with this ability, that weapon has an Damage characteristic of 0 for that attack.

    Armour Plating: Each time an attack is made against a model with this ability, an unmodified wound roll of 6 for that attack fails, irrespective of any abilities that the weapon or the model making the attack may have.

    This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/04/16 13:49:37


     
       
    Made in us
    Fixture of Dakka





    panzerfront14 wrote:

    I play Orks, it has been some time since I fought Dark Eldar but I recall regularly hitting their paper boats on 6s the majority of the time. The small Venoms mostly. But that experience, when I could make contact it was devastating but the difficultly of making that contact being my main obstacle. I then learned that like the majority of my issues, applying sufficient Smasha guns to the problem would solve it. But aside from that finding a way to add that flavor into the game would be a nice change IMO. Most Xenos aside from my orks should be harder to hit than Imperial counterparts.

    Ah. That makes sense. Even in 8th edition, drukhari could only get a single unit down to a -2 to-hit penalty each phase (baked in -1 and then an extra -1 from a 2CP strat), but I guess most ork units would be hitting on a 6+ from just a single -1 penalty. In the past, drukhari were relatively hard to hit because they could take advantage of whatever skimmer-related rule happened to exist at the time. Skimmers moving fast, Jink, 4+ cover saves when moving flat out, etc. Currently, that evasiveness is pretty much just a -1 to hit on a single transport (and flyers) and a 5+ invul save. The latter of which makes them good at "dodging" attacks with good AP (the invul is better than their armor against such weapons) but doesn't really help them against AP-1 and AP0.


    On your later points regarding raising T across the board for the largest tanks I agree with their points but Craftworld Eldar need some serious buffs to their entire Army. Starting from their regular guardians all the way to the top.

    You're not wrong, but unless those buffs involved making some of their AT weapons S9 or otherwise boosting their ability to wound vehicles, making things like Russes T9 would still mean that they'd be wounding less than half the time with anything short of a D-weapon. Though admittedly, you could potentially bring back something like the old lance rule that would let them always wound on at least a 4+.

    I agree that my beloved craftworlders could use a boost, I'm just also very wary of direct lethality boosts. ^_^;


    ATTENTION
    . Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
     
       
    Made in gb
    Longtime Dakkanaut






    RevlidRas wrote:
    I think that, rather than looking at which old rules to bring back and how, it would be more productive to look at:
  • the impact those old rules had
  • what you liked about that impact
  • why what you liked is no longer reflected in the rules
  • [list]how to translate that impact into the new rules[/i]

    Rather than talking about bringing back AV, look at the effect AV had on the game, what you liked about it, and how you could bring it back. For example, AV meant that it was impossible for small arms fire to damage most Vehicles tended to go from fully functional and undamaged to dead, with no in-between. Both of those have been lost - which did you like, and how could you revive them? Small arms fire would be easy, and could be done on a case by case basis or as a blanket rule; think of something like:
    Tank Armour: When resolving an attack made with a weapon with a Damage characteristic of 1 against a model with this ability, that weapon has an Damage characteristic of 0 for that attack.

    Armour Plating: Each time an attack is made against a model with this ability, an unmodified wound roll of 6 for that attack fails, irrespective of any abilities that the weapon or the model making the attack may have.


    That idea for damage 1 weapons being damage 0 is a good one, and it could be directly put into an "Tank Armour" stat which would be a reduction of damage. Light vehicles would be 0, rhinos & such would be 1, bigger tanks 2, superheavies 3. reduce incoming damage by this much, and reduce their wounds to compensate. Then somethings could have unique rules around this (a shield which gives TA 3 until the first damage goes through, a KFF giving TA+1 to vehicles within range, terminators & equivalents having TA1, or stormshieds giving TA1). A new form of damage mitigation would be a good addition to curb the incessant damage increases!

    12,300 points of Orks
    9th W/D/L with Orks, 4/0/2
    I am Thoruk, the Barbarian, Slayer of Ducks, and This is my blog!

    I'm Selling Infinity, 40k, dystopian wars, UK based!

    I also make designs for t-shirts and mugs and such on Redbubble! 
       
    Made in us
    Morally-Flexible Malleus Hearing Whispers




    So not gonna lie, Baneblades and varients need to be S/T 9 and 28 wounds base. I also like the idea of a stratagem that allows it to fire at top bracket in one shooting phase: "Re-route all systems to forward batteries" or something. Bascially 2 - CP the tank crew diverts all it's energy and focus to enabling the tank to fire another salvo at with unerring skill. Then even a wounded Baneblade isn't a 500pt waste of crap.

    It's still a viable threat.

    Also "Fire All guns!" - 1CP, if the model is destroyed, but before it leaves the table, the model can fire all it's weapons at once, before it explodes, or is removed from play.
       
    Made in us
    Tough-as-Nails Ork Boy




    FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
    So not gonna lie, Baneblades and varients need to be S/T 9 and 28 wounds base. I also like the idea of a stratagem that allows it to fire at top bracket in one shooting phase: "Re-route all systems to forward batteries" or something. Bascially 2 - CP the tank crew diverts all it's energy and focus to enabling the tank to fire another salvo at with unerring skill. Then even a wounded Baneblade isn't a 500pt waste of crap.

    It's still a viable threat.

    Also "Fire All guns!" - 1CP, if the model is destroyed, but before it leaves the table, the model can fire all it's weapons at once, before it explodes, or is removed from play.


    I'm still of the opinion that Super Heavy tanks like the Baneblade should be significantly tougher than Super Heavy Walkers, particularly if those have an invuln and the tank does not. I'd argue that if we keep the current system of single Toughness value for a vehicle that the tanks should have higher toughness and more wounds than the walkers, and perhaps with a more forgiving degrading scale than the tank. If a walker sustains major damage to a leg it can't brace itself to properly handle the recoil from the guns in the same fashion that a tank can by simple inertia and weight on the ground, thanks to a much lower and broader surface area with the ground.

    I also think that the majority of major ordinance needs a serious upgrade in terms of firepower. A Baneblade should easily outshoot its Knight counter part, but should lose to one hilariously in a melee fight, those are the advantages of the platforms they are.

    I'd personally start handing out multiple profiles to large caliber ordinance to represent AP or HE rounds. Most current profiles try to approximate both but don't do a decent job of it.
    The Current Baneblade cannon is 72" Heavy 3D6 str 9 AP-3 Damage 3 Blast
    I think it should be a 4d6 Strength 6 AP-1 2 damage shot, and the AP shot should be something along the lines of a Strength 16 AP-5 Damage 9 shot, incidentally what I think the Vanquisher will become, the benefit here is that the Baneblade has a second profile, but perhaps it should be stronger, the Tiger's 88 to the Panther's 75mm. Though perhaps it should be more along the lines of a 128mm, with similar stats but damage 12, capable of one shotting normal tanks.

    But it should probably be closer to 30 wounds at T9 and perhaps a 2+ save, though I think a 3+ is sufficient at high T and with that many wounds. I'd also like a return to the old 7th edition wounding scale which would make a LOT of weapons more meaningful.

    I am of the opinion that explosives are probably not as efficient against space marines as they would be against the majority of targets that a Baneblade's main gun is pointed at, and I also think that outside of Titans superheavy Tanks or SPGs should be the biggest guns on the battlefield. Then again getting shot at with what is probably an 8 inch cannon is probably pretty bad for Marines, (going off the fact that a Leman Russ uses a 5 inch cannon(4.9 if you wanna be pedantic) and the Baneblade's main gun is clearly a much larger weapon.

    This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/04/16 17:39:47


     
       
    Made in us
    Fresh-Faced New User




    As someone who still regularly plays 7th edition the idea that vehicles died right away is exaggerated. Often the main weapon gets destroyed and then the tank gets ignored, allowing the controlling player to still move it around to block line of site. Also several people have complained that large chunks of their armies wouldn't be able to kill tanks, which was kinda the whole point. It forces you to take a diverse list with a balance of anti-tank and anti-infantry. Yes skew-lists exist, and it might make a game take longer, but a game is about having fun, not having a single solution to every problem and getting your models packed away again as quickly as possible. To me, the old vehicle rules add a lot of depth, not just to combat but to movement and positioning as well.
       
     
    Forum Index » 40K Proposed Rules
    Go to: