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.

I have to agree with Vak, I don't think tanks are overly hard to kill now. I think they are as tough as they should be. In 4E If you weren't alpha there wouldn't be any tanks on your side of the board by the end of it. I like the look of everything being mechanized as it's cool to see a battlefield with transports dotted all over the place. The problem is that it's not practical for a table top wargame... you get tank spammed to hell and back again.

Indeed, the way tanks work now is fine except for transports.

Transports don't have to shoot, so simply by existing they are performing their function.

Battle tanks, on the other hand, get shaken once and are totally useless for the next turn.

Hello again.
I only posted my alternative damage resolution example as a responce to being asked to back up my statment that the 40k rule set is over complicated abstract and counter intuitive.

And I did say some peole WANT poorly defined anstract and counter intuitive rules to argue over.

In my suggested alternative , you still roll to see/hit, roll armour saves, and roll to damage.

But the alternative core rules cover ALL units.
Rather than relying on additional systems that are totaly different, causing disparity between vehicle and non vehicle units , for example.

In that sytem you can change a models survivability by altering its AV or its DT by one.And making it exactly one better vs all weapons.
Alowing for finer adjustment than curent 40k rules.
Thats why curent 40k rules need so many additional rules and exceptions.(Using dice in a deterministic way.)

I like the idea of the 40k universe.I like playing a game that brings it alive on the table top.Thats why I like Net Epic and Epic Armageddon.

Its a shame 40ks own rules are not written for 40k gameaply.But for WHFB then mutated horribly to try to get to 40k.

To me it makes sense that a vehicle should be treated dfferently to infantry. Tanks ARE virtually immune to all damage, but can be destroyed in a single hit and their only defence is their armour, not 'toughness.

TBH I think 40k is quite a simple system

They could do a seperate damage table for transports.

Hmmm, thinking about it, the mechanic where the effectiveness of a weapon is based on it's range would be a decent thing to change. I'm usually on the happy side of the line when doign my measuring, but it's annoying ot have to go through a big squad of troops and figure out which ones shoot twice and which ones shoot once. So the idea of Rapid Fire being 2 shots if stationary, 1 shot if moving appeals to me.

In a similar vein, I'd also love Melta to roll 2D6 for penetration for it's full range (that should put a damper on mechanized-heavy meta).

Jefffar wrote:
In a similar vein, I'd also love Melta to roll 2D6 for penetration for it's full range (that should put a damper on mechanized-heavy meta).

I doubt it would - it's just put the emphasis on tougher tanks.
And screw over those armies who don't have melta. Like Nids.

The issue of transports is another classic example of GW offering 3 fixes where one would do. The first one I ever saw was trying to fix Rhino rush by introducing Cleanse II, stopping assaults from vehicles, and then buffing the damage charts and AP1 weapons.

This time they saw how easily transports died, and nerfed the damage chart (to below its 3rd ed level, even) buffed cover, AND dropped the points of transports across the game. If they would have left tanks as deathtraps, but dropped the points accordingly, people would have accepted the trade off. Added mobility at a cost of its danger, rather than in points. Still worth taking, but not the basis for a strategy, rather the compliment of one. Alternatively, introduce the other two rules for vehicle damage and cover, but leave the costs as is. We need transports to take and hold objectives, leading to people include them (providing an upswing in sales) but too prohibitive in cost to take them for every unit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

Jefffar wrote:
In a similar vein, I'd also love Melta to roll 2D6 for penetration for it's full range (that should put a damper on mechanized-heavy meta).

I doubt it would - it's just put the emphasis on tougher tanks.
And screw over those armies who don't have melta. Like Nids.

Or those who can't take affordable/disposable melta. Like Tau or DE.

Nagashek wrote:This time they saw how easily transports died, and nerfed the damage chart (to below its 3rd ed level, even) buffed cover, AND dropped the points of transports across the game.

I respectfully disagree. Most xenos armies don't have such cheap and spammable transports as SM and IG while being close to their effectiveness.

Macok wrote:

Nagashek wrote:This time they saw how easily transports died, and nerfed the damage chart (to below its 3rd ed level, even) buffed cover, AND dropped the points of transports across the game.

I respectfully disagree. Most xenos armies don't have such cheap and spammable transports as SM and IG while being close to their effectiveness.

Really? I was referring, of course, only to books released since then, EG Orks, DE (no transports for demons or nids) and... well, shoot. I guess that's it. Necrons only have the Ark as a transport, and its cost is figured in by the other things that it brings to the table. No other Xenos have been released yet (Eldar and Tau definitely have very highly costed transports, but this makes sense given their durability for the edition in which they were made) and we certainly know how much love imperials have gotten. Or perhaps you don't feel that the Venoms, Raiders, Trukks and Battle Wagons are cost effective?

DE is an exception, completely agree.
I also agree that Trukk and BW are cool for their points but HS slot an decreasing boys to 12 guys are both huge drawbacks. Side shot to BW (not THAT hard) has similar chance of destroying it as a side shot to rhino. I've never seen complaints about Trukk spam. They are cost effective, but not too much for their cost.
They are also constructed so you can pretty easily nerf them without collateral damage to every vehicle out there - for example tweak Open Topped.
With rhino or razorback you can't do anything and not pull other vehicles too. This is codex at fault, not general rules. Rhino is good because all vehicles are good and it's price is tiny tiny. Any RB tweaks to rhino and every vehicle is affected.
The only thing you could go with imperial vehicles is change fire points but this is just not going to happen.

I guess what I meant is: 5ed brought an end to skimmer silliness without breaking other vehicles. This was done by RB change. I don't see any RB change (that actually has any chance of making into 6th edition) of toning down the most 'spammable' vehicles (let's say DE excluded) and not shelving others.
I think 5th Edition Rulebook is not responsible for transport domination. Some codexes are.

I think a good fix would be to simply make models with the "Transport" rule less appealing to use as widely as they are now, such as +1 to damage results on the chart, higher S damage to occupants, +S to Explode! results affecting them (So there's a chance of chaining exploding transports), slower overall transport speed, but especially reduced ability for occupants to fire out (Such as only if it didn't move or something)

Well if we want to do away with abstractions:

"Transport vehicles, while immensely useful on the battlefield, unfortunately sacrifice many systems to obtain their transport capacity. While Main Battle Tanks may have redundant backups for their fire control system, or a fire suppression system in their engine, Transport tanks lack these systems as a way of maximizing internal space.

To reflect this decreased durability, all transports suffer a +1 modifier on the vehicle damage chart. Additionally, due to the absence of fire suppression systems and wet-ammo storage, any result which would cause Destroyed - Wrecked causes Destroyed - Explodes instead."

Unit1126PLL wrote:Well if we want to do away with abstractions:

"Transport vehicles, while immensely useful on the battlefield, unfortunately sacrifice many systems to obtain their transport capacity. While Main Battle Tanks may have redundant backups for their fire control system, or a fire suppression system in their engine, Transport tanks lack these systems as a way of maximizing internal space.

To reflect this decreased durability, all transports suffer a +1 modifier on the vehicle damage chart. Additionally, due to the absence of fire suppression systems and wet-ammo storage, any result which would cause Destroyed - Wrecked causes Destroyed - Explodes instead."

Or, alternatively: "Throw away hundreds of pounds worth of chimeras".

So open topped transports would have a +2 on the damage chart?

Orks and Dark Eldar would get gutted by that.

Jefffar wrote:So open topped transports would have a +2 on the damage chart?

Orks and Dark Eldar would get gutted by that.

Or the +1 for being open topped is removed and some other negative added to being open topped. Something like +1 to all pen rolls due to important gubbinz being exposed or something.

Unit1126PLL wrote:Well if we want to do away with abstractions:

"Transport vehicles, while immensely useful on the battlefield, unfortunately sacrifice many systems to obtain their transport capacity. While Main Battle Tanks may have redundant backups for their fire control system, or a fire suppression system in their engine, Transport tanks lack these systems as a way of maximizing internal space.

To reflect this decreased durability, all transports suffer a +1 modifier on the vehicle damage chart. Additionally, due to the absence of fire suppression systems and wet-ammo storage, any result which would cause Destroyed - Wrecked causes Destroyed - Explodes instead."

Except...transports don't generally lack for those things...and they'd be horrifically easy to destroy, back to 4E status, meaning you'd never see transports used. Bolters would be able to explode Chimeras, Krak Grenades able to explode Stormravens, Krak missiles able to explode Land Raiders.

Vaktathi wrote:

Unit1126PLL wrote:Well if we want to do away with abstractions:

"Transport vehicles, while immensely useful on the battlefield, unfortunately sacrifice many systems to obtain their transport capacity. While Main Battle Tanks may have redundant backups for their fire control system, or a fire suppression system in their engine, Transport tanks lack these systems as a way of maximizing internal space.

To reflect this decreased durability, all transports suffer a +1 modifier on the vehicle damage chart. Additionally, due to the absence of fire suppression systems and wet-ammo storage, any result which would cause Destroyed - Wrecked causes Destroyed - Explodes instead."

Except...transports don't generally lack for those things...and they'd be horrifically easy to destroy, back to 4E status, meaning you'd never see transports used. Bolters would be able to explode Chimeras, Krak Grenades able to explode Stormravens, Krak missiles able to explode Land Raiders.

This is true, and good, I think.

It's not quite back to 4ed, as explosions are not good (see the entire thread, above), and there is no auto-pinning / entanglement. It's merely weaker transports. And transports deserve to be weak.

As for the realism, most definitely. The Bradley, for example, has mostly aluminum armor (with steel plates bolted on a'la Extra Armor), with no internal fire suppression or WAR. The Stryker has no WAR, and it's fire-suppression is terrible because of all the compromises made for weight and space.

Why not just make the squad inside the Transport become affected by the Damage Result of the transport?

Right now, if you get Stunned or Shakened, the unit inside can just ignore it by getting out. This should be changed to being affected if they even get out.

So a transport that is Shakened means the exiting Squad can only move or charge once getting out. A Stunned transport is basically just stuck there, but the squad should be able to exit the transport, just can not move after exiting.

Make it so a stunned transport cannot disembark or embark its ocupants. A shaken one can but they count as be shaken as well.

In all honesty, 5th Ed is fine except for a few things, which has been all stated in this thread.

Transports
Wound Allocation
Reserves
Cover
FnP

Except for one or two of the above areas, Codexes are a major issue, I think. They swing wildly in power. Tyranids to Grey Knights is a good example.

Why is FNP an issue? I never understood that.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:Why is FNP an issue? I never understood that.

I think the controversy surrounding the wording is an issue, i.e. does the Scarab's Entropic Strike work if FNP is passed? Does the model lose its armor save? OR the DE Hexrifle, just as an example.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:Why is FNP an issue? I never understood that.

Two reasons, first as already noted, interactions with other abilities. Second, it's far too widespread, reinforcing the need for heavy weapons spam and AP2. When you can get entire armies of jump packed equipped Space Marines deepstriking with almost no scatter and sporting enough damage reduction to laugh at multiple squads dumping full rapid fire loads into them, something is wrong. FNP was one thing when it was confined to a couple of characters and one or two units, but it has become far too widely available and is simply far too reliable.

Totalwar1402 wrote:
They could do a seperate damage table for transports.

Like this idea more than a I probably should. Perhaps the chart could be like.

1: Crew Shaken
2: Crew Stunnded
3: Passenger Wounded (Passenger takes a hit (str 3 AP - hit? str 4 AP - hit?) for every 3 rolled, multiple Crew Stunned or Shaken results count as another Passenger Wounded)
4: Weapon Destroyed
5: Vehicle Immobilized
6: Vehicle Destroyed (Passengers take D6 hits (same str and AP as a passenger wounded result))

Explosion is removed to jam in the passenger wounded (either it would have to be something like that or switch to a different chart like D10 or 2D6) result, also a transport isn't filled with lots of ammunition like a tank, so there is less to detonate. Honestly it would be better if they switched to a 2D6 damage chart, so it could be like.

2: Crew Shaken
3: Crew Shaken
4: Crew Stunned
5: Crew Stunned
6: Weapon Jammed (one weapon cannot fire for the following turn)
7: Turret Jammed (one turret or pintel mounted weapon cannot rotate although it can still fire, if there are no turret or pintel mounted weapons it counts as a weapon jam)
8: Weapon Destroyed
9: Immobilized
10: Destroyed
11: Destroyed
12: Explosion

Perhaps the transport chart could be

2: Crew Shaken
3: Crew Stunned
4: Passenger Wounded (Passenger takes a hit (str 3 AP - hit? str 4 AP - hit?) for every 4 rolled, multiple Crew Stunned or Shaken results counts as another Passenger Wounded)
5: Passenger Wounded (Passenger takes a hit (str 3 AP - hit? str 4 AP - hit?) for every 5 rolled, multiple Crew Stunned or Shaken results counts as another Passenger Wounded)
6: Weapon Jammed (one weapon cannot fire for the following turn)
7: Turret Jammed (one turret or pintel mounted weapon cannot rotate although it can still fire, if there are no turret or pintel mounted weapons it counts as a weapon jam)
8: Weapon Destroyed
9: Immobilized
10: Destroyed (Passengers take D6 hits (same str and AP as a passenger wounded result))
11: Destroyed (Passengers take D6 hits (same str and AP as a passenger wounded result))
12: Explosion (Passengers take 2D6 hits (str 5 AP 5))

Now transports would be much more dangerous, although the passenger wounded result isn't too bad alone, it has the potential to be annoying and a big hit if you are unlucky. Also the explosion result guarentees that one will take pretty high losses, potentially losing an entire squad because the transport blew up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vaktathi wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:Why is FNP an issue? I never understood that.

Two reasons, first as already noted, interactions with other abilities. Second, it's far too widespread, reinforcing the need for heavy weapons spam and AP2. When you can get entire armies of jump packed equipped Space Marines deepstriking with almost no scatter and sporting enough damage reduction to laugh at multiple squads dumping full rapid fire loads into them, something is wrong. FNP was one thing when it was confined to a couple of characters and one or two units, but it has become far too widely available and is simply far too reliable.

I feel like it is like that with a lot of special rules, the writers look at a unit and go "these guys are really elite, but we can't really boost their base stats. Maybe to show how tough/brave/skilled they are we will give them FNP/Fearless/ some other USR."

Basically all issues with FNP are caused by Matt Ward giving 6" bubble FNP effect for Priests. In all other 5e Codices, FNP is only given to single units.
Many of those codices did have bubble FNP effects before, but they were removed as it was very bad idea to introduce to game.

FNP is trivial to fix for 6th. Issue errata for BA removing the bubble effect and reword the rule so that wound saved by FNP either 1) doesn't count as unsaved wound (easy option) 2) does count as unsaved wound (will cause some headaches).

Another easy fix would be to just make it a 5+ does not count as unsaved.

Vaktathi wrote:Another easy fix would be to just make it a 5+ does not count as unsaved.

Or make it hurt by AP3 as well, thus giving those anti-power armor weapons another use.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Vaktathi wrote:Another easy fix would be to just make it a 5+ does not count as unsaved.

Or make it hurt by AP3 as well, thus giving those anti-power armor weapons another use.

Well, most AP3 weapons are also S8 and thus ignore FNP on *most* things, the bigger issue is that you can throw scatterlasers, heavy bolters, splinter cannons, etc at them all day long and kill very little because of the 4+ FNP on top of the 3+ armor.

Just change it so that any shot that ignores the model in question's armour ignores FNP.

And people are going to scream out for the painboy. I have a fix.

Doc knows wotz- Due to increble orkish regenerative sytems and the Docs knowing stuff, an Ork unit may always may a FNP save, unless the wound was caused by (insert all the stuff currently ignoring FNP, Eg, power swords).

Basically limit everyone else to an armour+FNP or an invulnerable/cover. Orks being supa tuff and regenerating quick, and doc gubbins, can have the current incarnation to balance their crap armour.

Deadshot wrote:Just change it so that any shot that ignores the model in question's armour ignores FNP.

And people are going to scream out for the painboy. I have a fix.

Doc knows wotz- Due to increble orkish regenerative sytems and the Docs knowing stuff, an Ork unit may always may a FNP save, unless the wound was caused by (insert all the stuff currently ignoring FNP, Eg, power swords).

And Plaguebearers?