Switch Theme:

A return to armor facings for 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 us
Confessor Of Sins




 AnomanderRake wrote:
You could, alternately, just play 30k.


If you're going to forgo 40k's ubiquity(it's best feature), why not switch to a good game?




 
   
Made in ca
Troubled By Non-Compliant Worlds






Ahahaha, we've become Eldar. Look at this elegiac state of elgiac-ness! Pining for templates and vehicle facings, what's next? A return to the days of milk and honey where movement was dictated by unit type? Be still my aged heart...
   
Made in dk
Pyro Pilot of a Triach Stalker






 KingGarland wrote:
For a model without a base each arc is determined as the area between two imaginary 1mm line coming out of each corner. (Not sure how to do it for models on a round or oval base, or with irregular shapes). Determine which facing a model firing at a vehicle is attacking; if the models base, or the hull if the model has no base, is at least 50% within one facing arc attacks are made against that armor facing.

That's the thing about armour facings, they're inspired by real-world great war era tanks and a lot of 40k vehicles don't resemble them at all.

Where might armour facings be useful and thematic? For Astra Militarum as an army rule that all their vehicles get. You get the downside of some weapons being unable to shoot in every arc and the upside of greater durability on some arcs. Astra Militarum tanks were made with shooting arcs in mind, Necron Obelisks were not, Obelisks are alien death machines, they shouldn't care about which arc they are firing from or which of their arcs is being fired upon.
   
Made in ca
Enginseer with a Wrench






Necromunda is bringing vehicle facings to the game for Ash Wastes with the quad having different toughness values for each facing so it could be feasible for it to be introduced back into 40k. I am not sure how you determine which armor facing you use though.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2022/04/29/ash-wastes-rules-breakdown-heres-whats-changing-when-necromunda-hits-the-road/

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/04/30 04:49:10


 
   
Made in au
Rough Rider with Boomstick







I am in favour. It would lead you to maybe spending a few more moments considering where to put your vehicles, or make some grey areas you may need to resolve between players etc but its part of the challenge/fun in some circumstances.
Most non brickly models come with bases, so you can literally mark the front corners of the vehicle on the rim of the base for quick reference(in my opinion bases rims are very under used in regards to their ability to aid gameplay mechanics), all you would need is a old school top down picture from a codex/FAQ to go off. For any skimmers/flyers/ mechs this should work pretty intuitively. Even if you model your mech in the most unconventional pose, if you have marked down the requisite angle of degrees on the base, well its clear cut.

In friendly play working out arcs of fire is pretty simple and easy to just eyeball. you just need to be familiar with your models, and well most sponsons behave the same. It actually promotes playing with your tank, and moving bits around on it, rather than using it as a static brick that can shoot any direction it wants. Both of arcs of fire and armour facings actually work to make a difference between tanks and self propelled guns as well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 KingGarland wrote:
Necromunda is bringing vehicle facings to the game for Ash Wastes with the quad having different toughness values for each facing so it could be feasible for it to be introduced back into 40k. I am not sure how you determine which armor facing you use though.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2022/04/29/ash-wastes-rules-breakdown-heres-whats-changing-when-necromunda-hits-the-road/


I am not sure what you mean, the vehicle is basically still a rectangle so the front facing is still the quadrant between the front wheels. Its got a slightly narrower frontage but its still got distinct front/side corners and distinction, that being the front tyres.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 vict0988 wrote:
 KingGarland wrote:
For a model without a base each arc is determined as the area between two imaginary 1mm line coming out of each corner. (Not sure how to do it for models on a round or oval base, or with irregular shapes). Determine which facing a model firing at a vehicle is attacking; if the models base, or the hull if the model has no base, is at least 50% within one facing arc attacks are made against that armor facing.

That's the thing about armour facings, they're inspired by real-world great war era tanks and a lot of 40k vehicles don't resemble them at all.

Where might armour facings be useful and thematic? For Astra Militarum as an army rule that all their vehicles get. You get the downside of some weapons being unable to shoot in every arc and the upside of greater durability on some arcs. Astra Militarum tanks were made with shooting arcs in mind, Necron Obelisks were not, Obelisks are alien death machines, they shouldn't care about which arc they are firing from or which of their arcs is being fired upon.

Well all tanks have armour facings that are not equal. Shoot an M1A2 Abrams in the rear with a WW2 era bazooka or a panzerfaust, and see what happens. Hell a PIAT would set the thing ablaze. Its sorta the commander's job to ensure that kind of thing ain't happening by using their vehicles appropriately, and what is the point in having big armoured and expensive tanks in a wargame if it has equal armour on all sides, and if their armour is cardboard? Expensive units like tanks should be great and hard to kill, but have vulnerabilities and facings should be an important mechanic.

Well tau, space marine, ork, chaos, dark eldar and eldar vehicles would also have different armour facings and different armour thicknesses. Mechs also seem to have their armour optimised on the frontal arch with things like imperial knights, dreadnoughts and wraithlords having their engines( or wraithbone array things)) mounted on the rear, along with substantially less armour plating, or platig less optimal for deflecting or stopping incoming rounds. Most necron vehicles would likely have all their facings are of equal armour anyway, it could be like an actual quirk of the faction, that their weird alien machines do not act like everyone else's and that they play differently.

This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2022/06/20 02:28:20


   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 OldMate wrote:

In friendly play working out arcs of fire is pretty simple and easy to just eyeball. you just need to be familiar with your models...

It was rare for dramatic disagreements to break out about the exact firing/facing arcs. That said, it was pretty common for my opponent and I to politely disagree and for one of us to politely just concede the point to our disadvantage for the sake of not making a big deal over it. Which works, but doesn't feel great and is the sort of thing a good rules set should avoid. And even if you're familiar with your models, reasonable people can disagree. Look at the wave serpent. Does its rear arc start at the rearmost points by the passenger hatch, or does it start to the left/right most points to the sides of the thrusters? And back when the serpent shield had a shooting profile, what exactly was its firing arc? It's very unclear, and reasonable people who disagree with one another sort of end up having to agree to play to one player or the other's disadvantage. Unless you want to add topdown diagrams to all the vehicle datasheets in the game.


Well all tanks have armour facings that are not equal.

This point has merit, but it can still feel sort of... arbitrary in the context of 40k. AV 12/12/10 wave serpents didn't feel like they had weaker rear armor because there's an engine in the back; they felt like they had weaker rear armor so that space marines could punch them to death. But then also, a lot of factions didn't really have much variety in their front/side armor. Craftworld vehicles were pretty much either 12/12/10 or 10/10/10. Pretty sure the same was true for tau aside from the hammerhead, and drukhari/harlequins were 10/10/10 on everything except the ravager which was 11/11/10. I think marines tended to be uniform on the front/sides unless you were talking about something like a vindicator. What I'm getting at is that side armor mostly only mattered for imperial guard and maybe orks. And rear armor mostly only mattered when you were punching it or if you'd just deepstruck into rear armor popping position.

So in practice, if imperial guard aren't on the table, you probably only cared about armor facings when deepstriking or punching. And we can reintroduce those situations with stratagems if you really want. No need to reintroduce a wonky alternative attack resolution system that makes vehicles immune to half the units in the game.

...and what is the point in having big armoured and expensive tanks in a wargame if it has equal armour on all sides, and if their armour is cardboard? Expensive units like tanks should be great and hard to kill, but have vulnerabilities and facings should be an important mechanic.

Haven't been getting a ton of games in lately, but the last time I checked, small arms fire was an ineffective way to kill tanks compared to anti-vehicle weapons. It takes a lot fewer meltagun shots to kill a leman russ than lasgun shots. Vehicles may be "carboard" right now, but that's mostly against relatively heavy weapons. Unless the meta has really gotten away from me, people aren't generally fielding lasguns to kill tanks. It's just that fielding a parking lot army doesn't make me immune to all my opponent's small arms fire either.

Honestly, bringing back armor facings wouldn't be the end of the world. I just don't see much point in it, and I feel like those who advocate for it are generally wearing rose-tinted glasses. (Or in some cases just want to run skew lists.)


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 us
The Conquerer






Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios

The issue is that small arms can do damage at all. It's really dumb that a volley of 30 lasguns will likely do 1-2 wounds on average to anything regardless of its save or toughness. And there is the small chance however unlikely that it can straight up kill something like a Knight from full to dead.

Vehicles should be immune to half the units in the game, because they're vehicles. The entire point of tanks is that they are immune to small arms fire, both real world and fictional. It kinda breaks any sort of immersion that a heavy tank can take damage from a bunch of pew pews.

Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines

Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.

MURICA!!! IN SPESS!!! 
   
Made in it
Waaagh! Ork Warboss




Italy

Wyldhunt wrote:


Honestly, bringing back armor facings wouldn't be the end of the world. I just don't see much point in it, and I feel like those who advocate for it are generally wearing rose-tinted glasses. (Or in some cases just want to run skew lists.)


No, it wouldn't be the end of the world but it was a mechanic that was neither balanced or immersive. Too many arguments about what facing is getting the hits and why only vehicles have to be weaker if attacked from the rare or flank? Also an infantry or a monster should be weaker if attacked from the back then, don't you think?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Grey Templar wrote:
The issue is that small arms can do damage at all. It's really dumb that a volley of 30 lasguns will likely do 1-2 wounds on average to anything regardless of its save or toughness. And there is the small chance however unlikely that it can straight up kill something like a Knight from full to dead.

Vehicles should be immune to half the units in the game, because they're vehicles. The entire point of tanks is that they are immune to small arms fire, both real world and fictional. It kinda breaks any sort of immersion that a heavy tank can take damage from a bunch of pew pews.


None of this has nothing to do with armor facings though. In 3rd-7th units with T7+ were immune to small arms fire without needing AV values.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/06/21 06:56:28


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Blackie wrote:
Wyldhunt wrote:


Honestly, bringing back armor facings wouldn't be the end of the world. I just don't see much point in it, and I feel like those who advocate for it are generally wearing rose-tinted glasses. (Or in some cases just want to run skew lists.)


No, it wouldn't be the end of the world but it was a mechanic that was neither balanced or immersive. Too many arguments about what facing is getting the hits and why only vehicles have to be weaker if attacked from the rare or flank? Also an infantry or a monster should be weaker if attacked from the back then, don't you think?

I mean, you're preaching to the choir here.


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 us
Keeper of the Flame





Monticello, IN

This is one of the many reasons I went back to 3rd Edition 40K

www.classichammer.com

For 4-6th WFB, 2-5th 40k, and similar timeframe gaming

Looking for dice from the new AOS boxed set and Dark Imperium on the cheap. Let me know if you can help.
 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Its AoS, it doesn't have to make sense.
 
   
Made in au
Rough Rider with Boomstick







Wyldhunt wrote:
 OldMate wrote:

In friendly play working out arcs of fire is pretty simple and easy to just eyeball. you just need to be familiar with your models...

It was rare for dramatic disagreements to break out about the exact firing/facing arcs. That said, it was pretty common for my opponent and I to politely disagree and for one of us to politely just concede the point to our disadvantage for the sake of not making a big deal over it. Which works, but doesn't feel great and is the sort of thing a good rules set should avoid. And even if you're familiar with your models, reasonable people can disagree. Look at the wave serpent. Does its rear arc start at the rearmost points by the passenger hatch, or does it start to the left/right most points to the sides of the thrusters? And back when the serpent shield had a shooting profile, what exactly was its firing arc? It's very unclear, and reasonable people who disagree with one another sort of end up having to agree to play to one player or the other's disadvantage. Unless you want to add topdown diagrams to all the vehicle datasheets in the game.


Well all tanks have armour facings that are not equal.

This point has merit, but it can still feel sort of... arbitrary in the context of 40k. AV 12/12/10 wave serpents didn't feel like they had weaker rear armor because there's an engine in the back; they felt like they had weaker rear armor so that space marines could punch them to death. But then also, a lot of factions didn't really have much variety in their front/side armor. Craftworld vehicles were pretty much either 12/12/10 or 10/10/10. Pretty sure the same was true for tau aside from the hammerhead, and drukhari/harlequins were 10/10/10 on everything except the ravager which was 11/11/10. I think marines tended to be uniform on the front/sides unless you were talking about something like a vindicator. What I'm getting at is that side armor mostly only mattered for imperial guard and maybe orks. And rear armor mostly only mattered when you were punching it or if you'd just deepstruck into rear armor popping position.

So in practice, if imperial guard aren't on the table, you probably only cared about armor facings when deepstriking or punching. And we can reintroduce those situations with stratagems if you really want. No need to reintroduce a wonky alternative attack resolution system that makes vehicles immune to half the units in the game.

...and what is the point in having big armoured and expensive tanks in a wargame if it has equal armour on all sides, and if their armour is cardboard? Expensive units like tanks should be great and hard to kill, but have vulnerabilities and facings should be an important mechanic.

Haven't been getting a ton of games in lately, but the last time I checked, small arms fire was an ineffective way to kill tanks compared to anti-vehicle weapons. It takes a lot fewer meltagun shots to kill a leman russ than lasgun shots. Vehicles may be "carboard" right now, but that's mostly against relatively heavy weapons. Unless the meta has really gotten away from me, people aren't generally fielding lasguns to kill tanks. It's just that fielding a parking lot army doesn't make me immune to all my opponent's small arms fire either.

Honestly, bringing back armor facings wouldn't be the end of the world. I just don't see much point in it, and I feel like those who advocate for it are generally wearing rose-tinted glasses. (Or in some cases just want to run skew lists.)

The rear of wave serpent is a pretty simple case in my opinion. The rear facing would start at the outside edge of the thrusters. The rear ramp is not likely to be very thick. Forward of thruster you actually have armour plating so clearly you that is a more armoured facing. Whilst punching the thruster would certainly end in a scorched hand i can actually imagine an astartes being able to damage the engines with close combat weapons. So yeah marines probably could realistically "punch" a falcon or wave serpent to death. We are talking about a swift and lightly armoured vehicle. Its likely not designed to have amped up apes in power armourwailing on its engines.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/06/21 08:00:38


   
Made in it
Waaagh! Ork Warboss




Italy

 Just Tony wrote:
This is one of the many reasons I went back to 3rd Edition 40K


I went back to 3rd edition of 40k (still my favorite edition), convincing a couple of hobby veterans to play oldhammer occasionally, because codexes had 20-30 datasheets and the dice rolling was a fraction of what it started to be since 5th. Which are basically the only things I'd ask for new editions of 40k: much smaller rosters and severely reduced dice rolling.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/06/21 08:03:12


 
   
Made in au
Dakka Veteran




If GW made it more simplistic. Say instead of arcs, just make it so the you have to be basically flat on the side or rear for those faces to count.



This basically removes all issues of arguments when measuring weird angles

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/06/28 08:04:02


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Jarms48 wrote:
If GW made it more simplistic. Say instead of arcs, just make it so the you have to be basically flat on the side or rear for those faces to count.



This basically removes all issues of arguments when measuring weird angles

So sort of draw a # symbol with your vehicle in the middle? I could see that. I guess you'd have to clarify which arc the corners used.


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 au
Rough Rider with Boomstick







I'd imagine the most favorable facing so the front corners would be the front. The rear corner angles would be the side. I'd say again i don't see the issue with having a simple X like they used to.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/06/29 05:48:38


   
Made in ca
Ancient Venerable Dreadnought






Great idea, would love to see it come back, i think every vehicle that GW puts out or in each codex, shows a top down view of each vehicle hull for that army and clearly marks what are considered the "corners" of the vehicles so that front, side, and back armor is easily determined.

To many unpainted models to count. 
   
Made in us
Huge Hierodule




Mexico

I don't think every vehicle needs armor facings.

They don't make sense on aircraft nor on Dark Eldar skimmers.

On the other hand, many monsters should have armor facings.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut



London

Too much on the table, too much going on, and you want to have more stuff to argue and about and fiddle over?
   
Made in us
Committed Chaos Cult Marine





What 10th should do is make the table size for Strike Force games 48"x72", but only allow infantry and bikers to fielded in the center 44"x60". Then add vehicle and monster facings. That way, vehicles and monsters with weaker rear armor can protect it if they are a reasonable distance from the fighting.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/06/29 19:21:07


 
   
Made in au
Rough Rider with Boomstick







 Tyran wrote:
I don't think every vehicle needs armor facings.

They don't make sense on aircraft nor on Dark Eldar skimmers.

On the other hand, many monsters should have armor facings.

On dark eldar skimmers there is plating on the sides and front and this would offer protection from small arms when the vehicle is above the shooters. And I'd imagine this to be the same level of plating all the way down the sides from behind it should totally be vulnerable. Its got exsposed machinery that small arms fire could totally damage.

   
Made in ca
Discriminating Deathmark Assassin





Stasis

Necron vehicles and armour facings?
Hahahahahahaha!

213PL 60PL 12PL 9-17PL
(she/her) 
   
Made in au
Dakka Veteran




Wyldhunt wrote:

So sort of draw a # symbol with your vehicle in the middle? I could see that. I guess you'd have to clarify which arc the corners used.


Exactly that. Sadly looks like my example broke.

But basically this:

Side | Side | Front
-------------------------
Rear | | Front
-------------------------
Side | Side | Front

Either measure from the extents of the hull or the base. Melee always uses rear.



This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/06/30 06:55:22


 
   
Made in au
Rough Rider with Boomstick







Why should melee always target rear? If models are not in contact with the rear why should they get the bonus of hitting it? What's more what is a melee weapon actually going to do to a vehicle like a tank etc? Actual AT weapons like melta bombs should trump wailing on something with a power weapon any day of the week.

   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 OldMate wrote:
Why should melee always target rear? If models are not in contact with the rear why should they get the bonus of hitting it? What's more what is a melee weapon actually going to do to a vehicle like a tank etc?


Back in the day, going after rear armor was framed as the attackers basically going after all the vehicle's weak spots in ways that you kind of can't when shooting a gun straight at it. So an ork probably isn't literally punching armored plates; he's scrabbling up onto the tank and jamming his slugga into vision slits/fire points, wrenching hatches and doors open, jabbing at treads with his choppa, peeling away metal from damaged sections, etc.

Actual AT weapons like melta bombs should trump wailing on something with a power weapon any day of the week.

I mean, presumably a melta bomb would trump wailing on the tank with a power weapon. In the ancient past, when we had to ride dinosaurs to the game store, meltabombs weren't shooting attacks. Being equipped with a meltabomb meant that you could give up your normal melee attacks to make a single attack with the meltabomb. Which had a very high strength and special rules to make it likely to hurt and meaningfully damage/kill a vehicle. It was sort of like a meltagun, but in punch form.

Regardless of whether or not vehicle facings make a comeback, we could presumably make the melta bomb a melee attack again.


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 au
Rough Rider with Boomstick







Wyldhunt wrote:
 OldMate wrote:
Why should melee always target rear? If models are not in contact with the rear why should they get the bonus of hitting it? What's more what is a melee weapon actually going to do to a vehicle like a tank etc?


Back in the day, going after rear armor was framed as the attackers basically going after all the vehicle's weak spots in ways that you kind of can't when shooting a gun straight at it. So an ork probably isn't literally punching armored plates; he's scrabbling up onto the tank and jamming his slugga into vision slits/fire points, wrenching hatches and doors open, jabbing at treads with his choppa, peeling away metal from damaged sections, etc.

Actual AT weapons like melta bombs should trump wailing on something with a power weapon any day of the week.

I mean, presumably a melta bomb would trump wailing on the tank with a power weapon. In the ancient past, when we had to ride dinosaurs to the game store, meltabombs weren't shooting attacks. Being equipped with a meltabomb meant that you could give up your normal melee attacks to make a single attack with the meltabomb. Which had a very high strength and special rules to make it likely to hurt and meaningfully damage/kill a vehicle. It was sort of like a meltagun, but in punch form.

Regardless of whether or not vehicle facings make a comeback, we could presumably make the melta bomb a melee attack again.

Dinosaurs? I thought it was those first fish crawling up on the land.
Well agaimst a heavily armoured vehicle, all of that is not going to work. Tracks are heavy steel, whacking one will only chip a good choppa, vision ports are often closable with perescopes, to use instead, and also ballistic glass and even internal steel plates to close the aperture. sturdy armour can't just be pulled away, unless by something truely monsterous. A terminator or mega armoured nob, yeah, a giant tyrannid or demn yeah, some random slugga or nob? Nah. Hatches and doors should be able to be closed from the inside. But a magnetic mine, melta bomb or even a molotov cocktail on the engine deck, on the rear facing or arc if you like, is going to put your armoured vehicle down. I think these kinds of weapons should be upgrades to squads and they should be what gives troops punch against enemy armour in melee. Depending on the vehicle's armour level of course. Melee weapons dhould be pretty alright against light vehicles, especially in for strong factions or units.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/07/01 02:49:38


   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 OldMate wrote:

Well agaimst a heavily armoured vehicle, all of that is not going to work. Tracks are heavy steel, whacking one will only chip a good choppa, vision ports are often closable with perescopes, to use instead, and also ballistic glass and even internal steel plates to close the aperture. sturdy armour can't just be pulled away, unless by something truely monsterous. A terminator or mega armoured nob, yeah, a giant tyrannid or demn yeah, some random slugga or nob? Nah. Hatches and doors should be able to be closed from the inside.

At the risk of getting lost in the weeds...
* Land raiders appear to have partially exposed tracks. Even if they're jointed metal or something rather than super rubber, it seems like they would be relatively vulnerable to something like a bolt pistol shot. And orks and bolt pistols are apparently both in the same S4 ballpark.
* Fire points used to be a thing vehicles had that let a certain number of models shoot out of the slits. Even if there are ways to seal those holes from inside, it doesn't necessarily mean that the crew was quick enough to close them. After all, they were open for the passengers to shoot a flamer out of on the previous player turn.
* Apparently a sufficiently determined Salamander can (barely) lift the side of an overturned land raider enough to unpin his brother's trapped limb. So I buy that a marine atop a tank could peel back damaged plates to widen the hole left by a lascannon. And orks and marines are both in the same S4 ballpark.
* Imperial vehicles aren't the most practical of machines. I'd absolutely buy that rhino doors are based on ancient tractor that were meant to be easily(ish) removed in case of emergencies or whatever.

* Tbf, the way the rules worked, you had to be S4 to have a 1/6th chance of inflicting damage. And that damage would be a glancing hit meaning you were basically just freaking out the crew rather than blowing up engines. In 5th edition, you had to roll high to immobilize the vehicle and probably strip away a lot of its guns before you had a chance at actually wrecking it. Which, in board game terms, means that you could kill a tank with S4 melee, but it wasn't a reliable tactic for most units.

* Honestly, it was mostly a gameplay thing. Most vehicles were immune to S4 and worse on all sides except the rear armor. So letting S4 units go after the rear armor in melee meant that things like blood letters, striking scorpions, ork boyz, etc. were still allowed to interact with enemy vehicles. Not much fun when big chunks of your army aren't allowed to attack the enemy's tank company. Most imperial factions had krak grenades on everything, which basically let you trade in your S3 or S4 attacks for a single S6 attack. (Which gave you 50/50 odds of hurting the tank once you landed a hit.)


But a magnetic mine, melta bomb or even a molotov cocktail on the engine deck, on the rear facing or arc if you like, is going to put your armoured vehicle down. I think these kinds of weapons should be upgrades to squads and they should be what gives troops punch against enemy armour in melee. Depending on the vehicle's armour level of course. Melee weapons dhould be pretty alright against light vehicles, especially in for strong factions or units.

I understand the impulse, but consider: lots of armies/units don't really have anti-tank equipment currently. So without these hypothetical upgrades, it's easy to end up with matchups where one army can barely touch the other. If we did introduce a bunch of anti-tank options to deal with this, then at that point we're writing rules to fix the problems we created with our first set of changes. Which is a red flag.

And then, if we did create the anti-tank options and players were expected to need those options to have a chance of dealing with tank armies, then you create this uncomfortable situation where you might win or lose during army creation based on how many points you spent on anti-tank grenades that you might not need. Take every anti-tank grenade you can get, and you're set against the tank company, but you're at a 200 point disadvantage against the swarm of gaunts. Ignore the anti-tank so you can face the gaunts on even footing, and the tank company blasts you. Split the difference and you're probably okay (unless there's a really tanky tank build out there), BUT now X% of your army is being spent on semi-mandatory anti-tank grenades every game plus the units that have the option to carry them. Which hurts list diversity. And if you're a casual player who doesn't know how many anti-tank grenades they'll need for a pickup game, you're potentially screwing yourself over or playing at a disadvantage because the option to take the wrong amount of grenades exists and no one told you about it.

We ran into a similar problem (though not quite as extreme) in 6th when flyers and anti-air weapons became a thing. Did you take flakk missiles on your devastators? Feels bad when your opponent has no flyers meaning you wasted the points. Did you field an anti-air tank? Feels bad that you didn't field that other unit you really wanted to take instead.

There's also the issue of balancing tank durability around a small number of models being able to threaten them. If a rhino is immune to boyz but can be threatened by a power klaw nob, then how many attacks from the nob should it take (on average) to kill the rhino? Now put a points cost on that. Now also put a points cost on the squad of all nobz each wielding a power klaw.


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 au
Rough Rider with Boomstick







I hope you appreciate how dangerous attacking a tank's tracks with a hand weapon is. There is the whole rabbit hole of tank melee attack but I shan't tread there today.

Attacking the rear should totally be viable I totally agree, but should things like striking scorpions and marines have some grenades(or a frikin breaching laser cutter?) or something to do that with? Its a bit more sensible...

Tau have EMP grenades, Tyrannids have spore mines, necrons standard infantry weapon is an AT weapon, eldar and dark eldar have haywire grenades, all the humans have bombs, genestealer cults have blasting charges, (shaped charges) and demons are literal demons so they kinda get a free pass, I am at a loss for the faction you are talking about. You could make these weapons 'already equipted' to squads that take up elites slots, figuring that guys like sternguards, veterans and elite aspect warriors are going to be packing the good stuff.


Well yes but a marine's armour is meant to withstand the same amount of punishment as a tank, and you do not see bolter marines having better armour saves than a light vehicle like sentinels, medium armoured vehicle like chimeras or rhinos or armour saves like legitimate actual tanks.

Well something like a rhino is just a carrier so the nobs would have to balance against any number of potential cargoes.

As for facing enemy lists your army is not suited to face, well you just have to put you faith in the emperor and do your best. If you sink all your points into giving your squads melta guns they will fare less well against the gaunt swarm than if you gave them flamethrowers. It would be boring to have all the right tools in the right places all of the time.

Things do not have to be fair when armies clash on the tabletop as long as all factions are balanced and have a decent range of options for countering eachother and every faction has the potential to beat every other on the table top. The most welly balanced army in the world could meet its bane. As it should be.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/07/01 09:41:32


   
Made in us
Huge Hierodule




Mexico

 OldMate wrote:

Tau have EMP grenades, Tyrannids have spore mines, necrons standard infantry weapon is an AT weapon, eldar and dark eldar have haywire grenades, all the humans have bombs, genestealer cults have blasting charges, (shaped charges) and demons are literal demons so they kinda get a free pass, I am at a loss for the faction you are talking about.

Spore mines are not equipment. Moreover they have never been good at AT work.

Also the effectiveness of Necron gauss weapons really depends on the ruleset, they sucked in 5th given that it was nearly impossible to destroy a vehicle with glances in 5th.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/07/01 14:14:55


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Tyran wrote:
Spore mines are not equipment. Moreover they have never been good at AT work.

There was that acid spore mine upgrade for biovores back in 3rd or 4th edition that was something like S4 but rolled 2d6 for armor pen. I keep expecting that to make a comeback as a stratagem or something. I guess GW figures that the potential for a small number of mortal wounds basically accomplishes the same thing.

OldMate wrote:
Attacking the rear should totally be viable I totally agree, but should things like striking scorpions and marines have some grenades(or a frikin breaching laser cutter?) or something to do that with? Its a bit more sensible...

Tau have EMP grenades, Tyrannids have spore mines, necrons standard infantry weapon is an AT weapon, eldar and dark eldar have haywire grenades, all the humans have bombs, genestealer cults have blasting charges, (shaped charges) and demons are literal demons so they kinda get a free pass, I am at a loss for the faction you are talking about.


Eldar are kind of an odd duck. Historically, the only craftworld units to have access to haywire grenades have been swooping hawks and (presumably formerly swooping hawk) autarchs. I love haywire grenades in general and wouldn't mind seeing them brought back with a proper weapon profile, but the existence of haywires in the past didn't mean that they were necessarily readily available. You could even argue that it would be sort of unfluffy for aspect warriors to have equipment that isn't part of their (highly symbolically significant) kit. Scorpions with breaching lasers sound cool and all, but it would definitely be adding a previously absent element to their lore.

Fire warriors have EMP grenades, but kroot traditionally don't. So do we discourage people from taking kroot even more than we do now? Demons could get a free pass even though they traditionally haven't. 'Crons traditionally had gauss, but it basically translated to fishing for 6s to wound. Which wouldn't be very effective unless you also overhauled every vehicle statline in the game or overhauled gauss weapons to do more damage to vehicles.

Human factions, admittedly, did usually have krak grenades and/or meltabombs. Almost like GW designs the game with them in mind but is prone to overlooking the impact on non-human factions...

Basically, yes. You could theoretically invent or adjust a bunch of anti-tank options for each codex. But if you have to do all that to keep invulnerable tanks from breaking the game, maybe just give up on the invulnerable tanks.

You could make these weapons 'already equipted' to squads that take up elites slots, figuring that guys like sternguards, veterans and elite aspect warriors are going to be packing the good stuff.

Painting with a pretty broad brush there. Should runtherds really be packing bomb squigs? Should krootox riders be the only kroot carrying EMP grenades? Do crisis suits suddenly count as having emp grenades? I think ripper swarms got moved to elites (or was it FA?) Seems weird to assume they're "packing the good stuff." This strikes me as one of those sweeping changes that would end up creating a bunch of problems.

And again, if you have to give every elite slot free anti-tank gear to make up for the balance issues you created by changing tanks, then we should probably just not use your proposed change to tanks. :(


As for facing enemy lists your army is not suited to face, well you just have to put you faith in the emperor and do your best...

Things do not have to be fair when armies clash on the tabletop as long as all factions are balanced and have a decent range of options for countering eachother and every faction has the potential to beat every other on the table top. The most welly balanced army in the world could meet its bane. As it should be.

The thing is, the game would still be in a worse place overall. Sure, maybe your dice roll hot and you occasionally manage to pull off an underdog win. Sure, maybe there's a highly specific build in your codex that can hard counter the new tank spam meta. But outliers like those don't change the fact that you're increasing the likelihood that one player will show up with a list that basically isn't allowed to fight back against the other. And that's bad.

(Also, anti-tank options existing somewhere in the codex don't matter after the lists have been built. If I don't feel like shoving fire dragons into every single list, then their existence doesn't improve my experience when I field a sans-dragons list against a tank regiment.)

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/07/02 00:30:22



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 us
Keeper of the Flame





Monticello, IN

Wyldhunt wrote:
Tyran wrote:
Spore mines are not equipment. Moreover they have never been good at AT work.

There was that acid spore mine upgrade for biovores back in 3rd or 4th edition that was something like S4 but rolled 2d6 for armor pen. I keep expecting that to make a comeback as a stratagem or something. I guess GW figures that the potential for a small number of mortal wounds basically accomplishes the same thing.

OldMate wrote:
Attacking the rear should totally be viable I totally agree, but should things like striking scorpions and marines have some grenades(or a frikin breaching laser cutter?) or something to do that with? Its a bit more sensible...

Tau have EMP grenades, Tyrannids have spore mines, necrons standard infantry weapon is an AT weapon, eldar and dark eldar have haywire grenades, all the humans have bombs, genestealer cults have blasting charges, (shaped charges) and demons are literal demons so they kinda get a free pass, I am at a loss for the faction you are talking about.


Eldar are kind of an odd duck. Historically, the only craftworld units to have access to haywire grenades have been swooping hawks and (presumably formerly swooping hawk) autarchs. I love haywire grenades in general and wouldn't mind seeing them brought back with a proper weapon profile, but the existence of haywires in the past didn't mean that they were necessarily readily available. You could even argue that it would be sort of unfluffy for aspect warriors to have equipment that isn't part of their (highly symbolically significant) kit. Scorpions with breaching lasers sound cool and all, but it would definitely be adding a previously absent element to their lore.

Fire warriors have EMP grenades, but kroot traditionally don't. So do we discourage people from taking kroot even more than we do now? Demons could get a free pass even though they traditionally haven't. 'Crons traditionally had gauss, but it basically translated to fishing for 6s to wound. Which wouldn't be very effective unless you also overhauled every vehicle statline in the game or overhauled gauss weapons to do more damage to vehicles.

Human factions, admittedly, did usually have krak grenades and/or meltabombs. Almost like GW designs the game with them in mind but is prone to overlooking the impact on non-human factions...

Basically, yes. You could theoretically invent or adjust a bunch of anti-tank options for each codex. But if you have to do all that to keep invulnerable tanks from breaking the game, maybe just give up on the invulnerable tanks.

You could make these weapons 'already equipted' to squads that take up elites slots, figuring that guys like sternguards, veterans and elite aspect warriors are going to be packing the good stuff.

Painting with a pretty broad brush there. Should runtherds really be packing bomb squigs? Should krootox riders be the only kroot carrying EMP grenades? Do crisis suits suddenly count as having emp grenades? I think ripper swarms got moved to elites (or was it FA?) Seems weird to assume they're "packing the good stuff." This strikes me as one of those sweeping changes that would end up creating a bunch of problems.

And again, if you have to give every elite slot free anti-tank gear to make up for the balance issues you created by changing tanks, then we should probably just not use your proposed change to tanks. :(


As for facing enemy lists your army is not suited to face, well you just have to put you faith in the emperor and do your best...

Things do not have to be fair when armies clash on the tabletop as long as all factions are balanced and have a decent range of options for countering eachother and every faction has the potential to beat every other on the table top. The most welly balanced army in the world could meet its bane. As it should be.

The thing is, the game would still be in a worse place overall. Sure, maybe your dice roll hot and you occasionally manage to pull off an underdog win. Sure, maybe there's a highly specific build in your codex that can hard counter the new tank spam meta. But outliers like those don't change the fact that you're increasing the likelihood that one player will show up with a list that basically isn't allowed to fight back against the other. And that's bad.

(Also, anti-tank options existing somewhere in the codex don't matter after the lists have been built. If I don't feel like shoving fire dragons into every single list, then their existence doesn't improve my experience when I field a sans-dragons list against a tank regiment.)



In 3rd Edition Striking Scorpions had Haywire grenades as well. One of my batreps involved me using them to smoke a Vindicator.

www.classichammer.com

For 4-6th WFB, 2-5th 40k, and similar timeframe gaming

Looking for dice from the new AOS boxed set and Dark Imperium on the cheap. Let me know if you can help.
 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Its AoS, it doesn't have to make sense.
 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K Proposed Rules
Go to: