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.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Mezmaron wrote:

I would improve it by making it more fun, go back to something more like RT.

So my suggestion would be to make it similar to AoS, without the crappy fluff revisions. The 40K fluff is fine.

Mez

AoS and RT are about as far apart as games can get, the only similarities they have is they don't really have points values (but for different reasons).

I meant in terms of being "fun".

Mez

Go back to 3rd/4th edition style play

Make the rules less random and more mature

Stop making everything about space marines

Have fluff events where things can actually change (but dont destroy it all forever like they did with fantasy)

The game was working fine before the massive proliferation of weapons that could kill their points value (or very close to it) in a single turn. Basically, stuff does too much damage.
When a gun shoots, you have 3 parts where probability "thins out" your damage: roll to hit (ballistic skill), roll to wound (toughness), roll to save (armor). This applies to any damage dealing mode, but shooting makes for a good example. This is how a boltgun goes from one shot to 0.11 dead marines a turn. Probability and uncertainty effectively reduce the average damage of a weapon. More powerful weapons gain effectiveness by reducing the possible failures at a certain stage (hit, wound, or save) to increase the probability of success. Finally, all weapons can boost rate of fire to give more chances, effectively influencing all 3.
The problem we're seeing now is that more and more weapons simply bypass more than one of these "probability gates" by making them near-certainties. Examples:
Grav w/amp: bypass wound, bypass save
Scatter laser (against most infantry): bypass wound
D-scythes: bypass hit, bypass wound, bypass save

Now, these types of weapons have existed before. For example, the lascannon bypasses wound and save. However, the difference with these new weapons is that they also have a high rate of fire, which overwhelms whatever "probability gate" is left. A grav cannon with amp still has to roll to hit, but with 5 shots it's going to get some through...and those that do bypass the wound mechanic and are AP2. The aspect warhost is another good example, where units like warp spiders hit on 2's and wound on 2's; they have bypassed the hit and wound gates, leaving only the save gate to reduce their damage. Re-rolls are another way to negate specific probability gates.

In short, we now have an excess of weapons that approach mathematical certainty to inflict damge. High toughness and good armor saves are traditional ways that units have survived (and they pay for them), and those qualities are increasingly being overwhelmed or flat-out ignored. This is why Necrons are so durable, because they add yet another probability gate to reduce damage via reanimation protocols.

What we need to do is decrease offensive capability. We need to go back to where basic troop weapons killed a tenth of their points cost on average, and more powerful weapons are limited in quantity. Then things like movement, target priority, and assault become a bigger deal, especially in objective games and both sides will finish with a more of their army still alive and fighting to the end.

 greyknight12 wrote:
The game was working fine before the massive proliferation of weapons that could kill their points value (or very close to it) in a single turn. Basically, stuff does too much damage.
When a gun shoots, you have 3 parts where probability "thins out" your damage: roll to hit (ballistic skill), roll to wound (toughness), roll to save (armor). This applies to any damage dealing mode, but shooting makes for a good example. This is how a boltgun goes from one shot to 0.11 dead marines a turn. Probability and uncertainty effectively reduce the average damage of a weapon. More powerful weapons gain effectiveness by reducing the possible failures at a certain stage (hit, wound, or save) to increase the probability of success. Finally, all weapons can boost rate of fire to give more chances, effectively influencing all 3.
The problem we're seeing now is that more and more weapons simply bypass more than one of these "probability gates" by making them near-certainties. Examples:
Grav w/amp: bypass wound, bypass save
Scatter laser (against most infantry): bypass wound
D-scythes: bypass hit, bypass wound, bypass save

Now, these types of weapons have existed before. For example, the lascannon bypasses wound and save. However, the difference with these new weapons is that they also have a high rate of fire, which overwhelms whatever "probability gate" is left. A grav cannon with amp still has to roll to hit, but with 5 shots it's going to get some through...and those that do bypass the wound mechanic and are AP2. The aspect warhost is another good example, where units like warp spiders hit on 2's and wound on 2's; they have bypassed the hit and wound gates, leaving only the save gate to reduce their damage. Re-rolls are another way to negate specific probability gates.

In short, we now have an excess of weapons that approach mathematical certainty to inflict damge. High toughness and good armor saves are traditional ways that units have survived (and they pay for them), and those qualities are increasingly being overwhelmed or flat-out ignored. This is why Necrons are so durable, because they add yet another probability gate to reduce damage via reanimation protocols.

What we need to do is decrease offensive capability. We need to go back to where basic troop weapons killed a tenth of their points cost on average, and more powerful weapons are limited in quantity. Then things like movement, target priority, and assault become a bigger deal, especially in objective games and both sides will finish with a more of their army still alive and fighting to the end.

Indeed the case.
I can see the "advanced weaponry" viewpoint of "but it shoots lasers/black holes/singularities/shurikens and lightning, guys shouldn't live through that!"
But for a good game to happen, there needs to be some concessions to "supposed" 41st millennium reality. Models like gretchin that are meant to be killed by dozens because they're almost free is fine, but hard boyz should be a lot harder (har har) to sweep off the table.
If the game were designed well, I don't think tabling someone before turn 4 should be possible.

I don't really think I can make any suggestions for this, as I've only been into the game since the tail-end of fifth, and have little practical expierience. So I have no idea how things were back then, but I still have some ideas for how the game should work.

1. Change the scale to a D10. Okay this sounds really nutty, but I actually think it would be a nice change, especially for realizisim in the game. In other threads, the mere suggestion of a BS 4 upgrade for Guard vehicles has upset people who think that Guard should not have the same BS as a Space Marine. I agree, but it's really hard to differentiate vetereans from regulars on a D6 scale, but a D10 would make it easier. This is just a little suggestion, and I understand it probably sounds stupid.

2. Keep HP. I'm sure a lot of IG players are going to be angry about this one, but I actually do like HP. They are a good way of representing the general durability of a tank, and also give us a way to avoid random one-shot kills on a vehicle that we were counting on. Now I have two modifications for HP though. First, make them different in value. A rhino should not have the same HP as a Leman Russ. There should be a bigger range of HP that better represents the scale of the vehicles. Secondly, don't have glances take a HP, instead brig back the fifth edition table for glances, maybe modified a little. This actually makes more sense, as Haywire and Gauss weapons are actually more likely to shake or stun a crew or cause damage to a critical system than actually damage the overa durability. Modify D weapons so that they auto-strip off 1 HP per hit. I think that would be a good compromise.

3. Fortifications. I'm not sure how much of a problem people have with this, but I love them. Okay, they can be abused, but that's something that can be said about many things in the 40k realm. Other ears should have been given their own fortifications so that they don't have to steal Imperium ones. But otherwise I love the idea. Yeah it's feeding gunline armies, and I do play guard, but that doesn't mean that there doesn't need to be fortification that only benefeit Gunlines. Stuff like the landing pad which helps deep strikers is a great idea.

4. Allies. There was a suggestion in another thread to just lower the levels of alliance by one and get rid of Battle Brothers, and that's the best idea in my opinion. It gets rid of most of the abuses while still allowing fluffy players to forge the narrative or come up with unique army ideas.

5. Keep in mind I'm a fifth and later player, so when people talk about going back to second or RT, or about how everything's an extension of third, I don't know what their talking about and will leas those comments alone for now. Except for how everything's an extension of third. I don't know how much of a difference there was between 1st/2nd/3rd, but generally in other wargames often new releases are often continuations of previous editions. There's changes, but the basic stuff is still the same, the big examples being Warmahordes, Battletech, and Infinity, so I don't get where people are coming from with that.

HP's unfortunately are really a terrible method of representing tanks. Tanks keep going until something dramatic happens, usually the armor gets penetrated and something goes BOOM! The way they're done now, they're just wounds like anything else, except vehicles don't get armor/invul saves like MC's do.

HP's might represent something unarmored relatively well, like a large truck, that can actually just fall apart with enough body damage, but not really tanks, where they're much more solidly built and reinforced and a hole typically means something catastrophic has happened.

Just to address the last 2 posts with some alternatives...
Everyone agrees that 40k needs more granularity in the interaction , to reflect the diversity of units in the game.(To cut down on 'special snowflake' special rules.)

However, going to a D10 instead of a D6 is not addresing the core issues in the rules.And D10 are not a practical choice if you are rolling lots of dice together.(eg 20 to 30 dice at a time!)

Here is the universal table we are using ATM in our Apha testing of some new rules .(9 results from a D6 , would you believe!)
(We added a Stealth value to oppose Shooting skill, so ALL combat resolution is now comparing opposed values on ONE table.)


v 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10.
1 4 5 5 6 6 h h n n n
2 3 4 5 5 6 6 h h n n
3 3 3 4 5 5 6 6 h h n
4 2 3 3 4 5 5 6 6 h h
5 2 2 3 3 4 5 5 6 6 h
6 1 2 2 3 3 4 5 5 6 6
7 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 5 5 6
8 d 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 5 5
9 d d 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 5
10 d d d 1 1 2 2 3 3 4

To hit ..(Shooting skill vs Stealth skill, Assault Skill vs Assault skill.)
h = Hard to hit, halve number of successes(6s rolled.) rounding down.
n= No effect.(Automatic miss,)
d= Double hits.(Target is automatically hit twice).

To save (Armour value vs Armour Penetration value.)
h=Hard hit .The target has to roll 6 followed by a 6 to save.
n= No save possible.(Auto penetration .)
d= Deflected hit , automatically saves all hits. including Double hits.

To wound (Damage value of weapon vs resilience value of target.)
h= Hard to kill, Roll 6+ followed by 6+ rolled to cause damage.
n= No effect the target is to resilient to lose wounds structure points.
d=Destroyed, the model suffers massive critical damage, looses all wounds/structure points , and is removed from play.

Conversion to new AV values.
Armour save 6+ = AV 1,to Armour save 2+ = AV 5.
AV 6 = terminator(AS 2+5++) and current AV 10.
AV 7 =terminator (AS 2+4++)and current AV 11.
AV 8=current AV 12
AV 9= current AV 13
AV 10 =current AV 14.

We have found using the same table to work out the chance to hit to wound and to save , speeds the game up and adds in lots more diversity in the interaction.

As far as HP go.
I would prefer to have penetrating hits cause a set type of damage, but done in a way to apply to MC an vehicles in the same way.

Each vehicle or MC has a set number of Mobility hits, and Armament hits it can suffer .

Each armament hit removes a (weapon) attack.
Each mobility hit reduces the speed the model moves.
EG if a model has 2 mobility hits, it can only move half speed when it suffers one mobility hit, and is immobilized when it suffers the second mobility hit.

When a model looses all its (weapon) attacks it has to pass a moral test at the start of the turn or route.
When a model is immobilized , it has to pass a morale test at the start of the turn , or it is destroyed,(The crew bails out , or the M/C bleeds out .)

I think the real problem with 40k rules is they have always been made backwards compatible, and so the amount of stuff added has made the whole thin a holistic mess that is a nightmare to sort out properly.
Where as a new rule set written for the current units and intended game play of 40k, (not those in found in RT.)

Would be the most effective way forward.

I am not too good at explaining my ideas in the written format, but I hope you can see some value /ideas for discussion in this post.

saithor wrote:I don't really think I can make any suggestions for this, as I've only been into the game since the tail-end of fifth, and have little practical expierience. So I have no idea how things were back then, but I still have some ideas for how the game should work.

1. Change the scale to a D10. Okay this sounds really nutty, but I actually think it would be a nice change, especially for realizisim in the game. In other threads, the mere suggestion of a BS 4 upgrade for Guard vehicles has upset people who think that Guard should not have the same BS as a Space Marine. I agree, but it's really hard to differentiate vetereans from regulars on a D6 scale, but a D10 would make it easier. This is just a little suggestion, and I understand it probably sounds stupid.

2. Keep HP. I'm sure a lot of IG players are going to be angry about this one, but I actually do like HP. They are a good way of representing the general durability of a tank, and also give us a way to avoid random one-shot kills on a vehicle that we were counting on. Now I have two modifications for HP though. First, make them different in value. A rhino should not have the same HP as a Leman Russ. There should be a bigger range of HP that better represents the scale of the vehicles. Secondly, don't have glances take a HP, instead brig back the fifth edition table for glances, maybe modified a little. This actually makes more sense, as Haywire and Gauss weapons are actually more likely to shake or stun a crew or cause damage to a critical system than actually damage the overa durability. Modify D weapons so that they auto-strip off 1 HP per hit. I think that would be a good compromise.

3. Fortifications. I'm not sure how much of a problem people have with this, but I love them. Okay, they can be abused, but that's something that can be said about many things in the 40k realm. Other ears should have been given their own fortifications so that they don't have to steal Imperium ones. But otherwise I love the idea. Yeah it's feeding gunline armies, and I do play guard, but that doesn't mean that there doesn't need to be fortification that only benefeit Gunlines. Stuff like the landing pad which helps deep strikers is a great idea.

4. Allies. There was a suggestion in another thread to just lower the levels of alliance by one and get rid of Battle Brothers, and that's the best idea in my opinion. It gets rid of most of the abuses while still allowing fluffy players to forge the narrative or come up with unique army ideas.

5. Keep in mind I'm a fifth and later player, so when people talk about going back to second or RT, or about how everything's an extension of third, I don't know what their talking about and will leas those comments alone for now. Except for how everything's an extension of third. I don't know how much of a difference there was between 1st/2nd/3rd, but generally in other wargames often new releases are often continuations of previous editions. There's changes, but the basic stuff is still the same, the big examples being Warmahordes, Battletech, and Infinity, so I don't get where people are coming from with that.

Obviously you have never actually seen what really happens to tanks in combat. Allow me to enlighten you:




Much as I utterly HATE citing Fury as evidence (the historical innacuracies and crimes against general sense make me scream internally) the way that the tanks function within it is actually correct. They just keep on rolling and shrugging off the shots until someone gets a hit in that penetrates and hits something vital. And in all honesty even then there are records of tanks taking a penetrating hit and continuing to roll and fight. The current system used in 40K is a terrible method that does not represent how tanks truly work. Tanks do not role forwards, take a few glancing blows and then just stop functioning.
Those glancing hits that strip a HP each time should really be represented by a table that allows for the crew to be stunned or shaken and the tank to be immobilised or have a weapon destroyed by the hit.
On the other hand penetrating hits should be devastating and have a 50% chance to knock the vehicle out or even blow it up.

Need some more evidence?

Vaktathi wrote:HP's unfortunately are really a terrible method of representing tanks. Tanks keep going until something dramatic happens, usually the armor gets penetrated and something goes BOOM! The way they're done now, they're just wounds like anything else, except vehicles don't get armor/invul saves like MC's do.

HP's might represent something unarmored relatively well, like a large truck, that can actually just fall apart with enough body damage, but not really tanks, where they're much more solidly built and reinforced and a hole typically means something catastrophic has happened.

Exactly. Right now a Tank is less worth having than an MC.
A truck or light vehicle is where the HP system would make real sense as you said. But for tanks it should be a pen or nothing.

 saithor wrote:
I don't really think I can make any suggestions for this, as I've only been into the game since the tail-end of fifth, and have little practical expierience. So I have no idea how things were back then, but I still have some ideas for how the game should work.

1. Change the scale to a D10. Okay this sounds really nutty, but I actually think it would be a nice change, especially for realizisim in the game. In other threads, the mere suggestion of a BS 4 upgrade for Guard vehicles has upset people who think that Guard should not have the same BS as a Space Marine. I agree, but it's really hard to differentiate vetereans from regulars on a D6 scale, but a D10 would make it easier. This is just a little suggestion, and I understand it probably sounds stupid.

I think you should never have to ask your opponent about his stat in order to make a roll. This slows down the game and is very clunky. You should just roll on a d10 and if you're WS is 5 everything 5 and under is a hit. And there should only be one toughness value, not both to wound and armor save. it slows down the game.

One should never, ever use fiction to support one's argument. I can create fiction in which a green human pulls a tank apart with his bare hands.

[Been playing IG as my main army since the Eye of Terror Campaign]

HP are a step in the right direction. The AV mechanic should be disposed of, and replaced with MC like rules. High toughness, a saving throw, and no damage table. It's just a hassle mid game.

MC and Vehicles should be a type, differentiating between organic and mechanical. Poison works against organic, as does shred. Haywire works against vehicles, as does armourbane [becomes a re-roll].

At most, there should be a rule when a vehicle / MC is below half HP, their movement is halved, Attacks are halved, and only one weapon may be fired at full BS.

Tanks can "worn down" so to speak. Tracks blown off, weapons jammed, etc, etc. HP represent that much better than a damage table, in the context of the table-top game.

 greatbigtree wrote:
One should never, ever use fiction to support one's argument. I can create fiction in which a green human pulls a tank apart with his bare hands.

[Been playing IG as my main army since the Eye of Terror Campaign]

HP are a step in the right direction. The AV mechanic should be disposed of, and replaced with MC like rules. High toughness, a saving throw, and no damage table. It's just a hassle mid game.

MC and Vehicles should be a type, differentiating between organic and mechanical. Poison works against organic, as does shred. Haywire works against vehicles, as does armourbane [becomes a re-roll].

At most, there should be a rule when a vehicle / MC is below half HP, their movement is halved, Attacks are halved, and only one weapon may be fired at full BS.

Tanks can "worn down" so to speak. Tracks blown off, weapons jammed, etc, etc. HP represent that much better than a damage table, in the context of the table-top game.

But does it? IRL tanks are very rarely worn down and even then it is over long engagements lasting many hours. In 40K a game is about, well, a minute or so a turn.
Tanks DIE from PENETRATING hits. Not glancy glancy bull like we have at the moment. Right now a tank is ad a disadvantage because thanks to GW and their brainless rules and MC or any other multi wound model can fight on until it is killed. A tank fight on BUT risks losing its weapons, ability to move and fight as it does so. It can also be one shotted by man weapons out there. And it has almost no saves against this.

NB, whilst they may be fictional those videos which I brought in are about as close to reality as you can possibly get. I did try to get actual war time footage but there was the slight issue that IRL cameras are very rare on the battlefield, tend to be of low quality and have the slight issue that even in WW2 tank vs tank combat took place at ranges of 500 metres to 2.5 kilometres. Therefore actual footage is hard to find.

However there are very very few accounts of tanks being worn down in the way that you and GW say happens. Almost all kills are performed by a penetrating hit.

They want you to buy those monstrous creature models. But not tanks, I guess.

I disagree.

Though movies do make for a very poor reference, the fact is a real tank can take a continuous beating until something actually gives.

Hull Points are ridiculous.

What is needed is a better, more intuitive Damage Table for vehicles, not wounds for tanks. If anything, Monstrous Creatures and multi-wound models need a method for diminished performance. Why exactly is that thing with 4 wounds operating at 100% when 75% dead? Oh yes........because.

I'm not advocating reduced performance for multi-wound models because we tried a fairly simple method and most players either didn't remember to use it or didn't care enough to. But the game has since introduced so many more MC's we may readdress that. In the meantime we altered the damage table for vehicles and made them a bit more stout, but not like 5th Ed. which made them too strong in contrast to 4th Ed which made them rolling death traps. As with so many things, GW swings the pendulum too far when 'adjusting' its rules. The hull point solution was never necessary; now people are married to it.

I think the point trying to be made is all units should be covered the same way.Having separate systems to cover a particular unit type that was added on ,is poor game design .

If an infantry units looses effectiveness as it looses models.
Then to allow better balance , MCs and vehicles should follow the same method of loosing efficiency unless hit by some thing devastating.

OR let all units remain at full efficiency until they sustain enough damage, then remove them.

Because of the scale of the minatures in 40k players expect detailed interaction.

It is possible for tanks to loose efficiency from penetrating hits.(But just get suppressed by 'glancing' hits.)
Any one seen a tank loose a track and become partially immobilized, or have the drive train damaged and move at reduced speed.Or suffer a turret ring jam, or get a MG destroyed .)Or loose a crew member like the tank commander loosing his head!


Because 40k is set in a fictional war , you can pick any single resolution system you want.BUT for the sake of elegant game design you have to be consistent.

 amanita wrote:
I disagree.

Though movies do make for a very poor reference, the fact is a real tank can take a continuous beating until something actually gives.

Hull Points are ridiculous.

What is needed is a better, more intuitive Damage Table for vehicles, not wounds for tanks. If anything, Monstrous Creatures and multi-wound models need a method for diminished performance. Why exactly is that thing with 4 wounds operating at 100% when 75% dead? Oh yes........because.

I'm not advocating reduced performance for multi-wound models because we tried a fairly simple method and most players either didn't remember to use it or didn't care enough to. But the game has since introduced so many more MC's we may readdress that. In the meantime we altered the damage table for vehicles and made them a bit more stout, but not like 5th Ed. which made them too strong in contrast to 4th Ed which made them rolling death traps. As with so many things, GW swings the pendulum too far when 'adjusting' its rules. The hull point solution was never necessary; now people are married to it.

Finally someone gets it!

And if you do not believe this then you can read the historical reports of Tanks withstanding literally hundreds of hits over the course of a battle. Seriously, just google historical tank battles.

Logic and reality have nothing to do with 40K. Nothing.

 master of ordinance wrote:

 amanita wrote:
I disagree.

Though movies do make for a very poor reference, the fact is a real tank can take a continuous beating until something actually gives.

Hull Points are ridiculous.

What is needed is a better, more intuitive Damage Table for vehicles, not wounds for tanks. If anything, Monstrous Creatures and multi-wound models need a method for diminished performance. Why exactly is that thing with 4 wounds operating at 100% when 75% dead? Oh yes........because.

I'm not advocating reduced performance for multi-wound models because we tried a fairly simple method and most players either didn't remember to use it or didn't care enough to. But the game has since introduced so many more MC's we may readdress that. In the meantime we altered the damage table for vehicles and made them a bit more stout, but not like 5th Ed. which made them too strong in contrast to 4th Ed which made them rolling death traps. As with so many things, GW swings the pendulum too far when 'adjusting' its rules. The hull point solution was never necessary; now people are married to it.

Finally someone gets it!

And if you do not believe this then you can read the historical reports of Tanks withstanding literally hundreds of hits over the course of a battle. Seriously, just google historical tank battles.

Which I agree with. I suggested having Glancing hits just roll on the old chart instead of actually damaging the tank. That seems to be the huge problem everybody has with the HP system, and switching it back to the 5th edition table for glancing hits. I know they're not realistic, but do we really expect that from a wargame set 38,000 years in the future? Also, if almost all penetrating hits caused an auto-wrecks, in real life, shouldn't the table do the same? I'm not for or agaisnt HP, and I didn't realize that people felt they should be removed, but complaining of because of realisim in the 40k universe is a little....weird. Also, which do you think would be more durable of glancing hits didn't strip a HP, vehicles with the 5h damage chart, or with HP and the 7th damage chart?

How many hits do they resist from "penetrating" hits? Maybe 3? If I recall, the purpose of ablative armour is to resist a single penetrating hit. After that, you're cooked.

Sure, they shrug off machine gun fire. Grenades even. 40k Tanks shrug those off too. Perhaps we're taking the literal meaning of a "glancing" hit as meaning something that glances off, rather than something that causes damage. Blows out a piece of armour, for example.

As you guys have pointed out, a penetrating hit usually disables a vehicle. The HP system is a better way of representing the depletion of a Tank's ability to resist damage from weapons that could actually hurt it.

Tanks do not resist being repeatedly hit by weapons capable of penetrating their armour, no matter how lucky they are. You don't have crew get stunned 6 times in a row while ordnance has turned their hull to swiss cheese.

HP is a perfectly reasonable way to represent this on the tabletop.

 greatbigtree wrote:
How many hits do they resist from "penetrating" hits? Maybe 3? If I recall, the purpose of ablative armour is to resist a single penetrating hit. After that, you're cooked.

Sure, they shrug off machine gun fire. Grenades even. 40k Tanks shrug those off too. Perhaps we're taking the literal meaning of a "glancing" hit as meaning something that glances off, rather than something that causes damage. Blows out a piece of armour, for example.

As you guys have pointed out, a penetrating hit usually disables a vehicle. The HP system is a better way of representing the depletion of a Tank's ability to resist damage from weapons that could actually hurt it.

Tanks do not resist being repeatedly hit by weapons capable of penetrating their armour, no matter how lucky they are. You don't have crew get stunned 6 times in a row while ordnance has turned their hull to swiss cheese.

HP is a perfectly reasonable way to represent this on the tabletop.

There are accounts of Tigers taking 100+ hits from 75mm M3, 75mm OQF, 76mm and 85mm guns at close and even point blank range. Panzer IV's too. Panzer III's could glance a surprising amount of hits. There are accounts of Konigstigers, Churchill VII's and Jagdtigers taking hits from 88mm, 100mm, 90mm and several other high calibre tank killers and just shrugging it off like nothing ever happened. Chuchill I's, II's, III's and IV's in Tunisia and the Desert. Matilda II's which could bounce most shots short of an 88 PAK 36 or a 75 PAK 43.
Hell, every single historical account of tanks in battle state something entirely the opposite to what GW's system depicts and you are trying to tell us happens.

The Glancing hits table represented hits that have struck a particular component such as the running gear or track or gun, or have hit the hull hard enough to shake something loose and/or stun/shock the crew. They are that. Lucky hits that whilst not fatal have truck in a way as to somewhat mitigate the tanks overall performance for the time being. They are not carving huge chunks out of the superstructure, at least not in any way to qualify for the reduction of a HP.

And how many of those penetrated the hull? The glancing hits you refer to the tanks shrugging off literally glanced off with no effect. Those would be represented in game as rolls that failed to Glance / Pen.

How many times does a tank get PENETRATED before the occupants are reduced to mush?


Replace the words "glancing hits" with "minor damage". Minor damage represents drives being damaged but not destroyed. Weapons being jammed in place. Ablative armour being removed. Minor DAMAGE [not resisted / ricocheting off] that doesn't stop a tank, or prevent it from functioning.

Now, replace "penetrating hit" with "major damage". This represents hits that reduced the effectiveness of a tank. Things like tracks being blown off. Weapons being destroyed. Engines being ruined. Gunners being killed.

Now, Hull Points represent that cumulative effects. Sure, hundreds of frag grenades and bullets bounce off. Even the occasional RPG just clinks off the armour. But eventually you get hit square by something powerful. That's what damaging hits are in 40k. Things that don't glance off. A Lascannon that rolls a 2, when attacking AV 12, has been one of the shots you're referring to. A Lascannon that rolls a 3 has inflicted minor damage, hitting a drive wheel square, or activating ablative armour.

A Lascannon that rolls a 4+ has inflicted Major Damage, by scoring a direct hit that either hit the same point that was previously hit [Ablative Armour was already used in that spot, the cog in that gear was cracked and now it's destroyed]. In either case, we're not talking about a shot that bounced off, but something that actually harmed the Tank.

HP are a reasonable way to represent this, in a game where we need to represent cumulative damage.


On top of which, you get to hear the stories of tanks shrugging off hundreds of hits because those tankers were still alive. No crewman tells the story of how the single cannon blast killed him. He's waaay to dead to do that.

 greatbigtree wrote:
How many hits do they resist from "penetrating" hits? Maybe 3? If I recall, the purpose of ablative armour is to resist a single penetrating hit. After that, you're cooked.

Sure, they shrug off machine gun fire. Grenades even. 40k Tanks shrug those off too. Perhaps we're taking the literal meaning of a "glancing" hit as meaning something that glances off, rather than something that causes damage. Blows out a piece of armour, for example.

As you guys have pointed out, a penetrating hit usually disables a vehicle. The HP system is a better way of representing the depletion of a Tank's ability to resist damage from weapons that could actually hurt it.

Tanks do not resist being repeatedly hit by weapons capable of penetrating their armour, no matter how lucky they are. You don't have crew get stunned 6 times in a row while ordnance has turned their hull to swiss cheese.

HP is a perfectly reasonable way to represent this on the tabletop.

Agreed.

HP might not be an accurate simulation of how tanks work IRL. But what 40k NEEDS, what would improve 40k as a GAME at this point, is simplification. It needs to be a better game, not a better simulation.

Look at the problems with 40k. It is a LONG game with LOTS of rules. Playing the game at the recommended points level (~1500 points) takes around 2 hours. To improve the game, it needs to get quicker and simpler to play. That is less look-up tables, less special rules, less randomness for the sake of representing the infinitesimal chance of failure, less individuality of models.

IMO they're in a relatively good place in 7th... so long as you're fielding true 'Tanks' ie AV13+. Lighter vehicles (AV10-12) get worn down by sustained mid-strength firepower... but they typically represent skimmers, trucks or APCs rather than battle tanks. AV13-14 are the real heavy hitters and in most cases they do require dedicated anti-tank weaponry or maneuvering in to back arcs.

However, we can look back at other editions we can see how various vehicle rules have affected the game. 6th edition had quite weak vehicles - possible to explode from light weapons made S7 spam the best way to counter everything short of a landraider. 5th edition had godly strong vehicles - troops contesting while embarked, assault from stationary vehicles, nearly impossible to kill short of an explodes result, those things just kept on trucking.

Like I've said before, I think the best way to do a quick fix is just make Glancing hits get treated like they did back in fifth edition, or even a modified version of the table. 1-2 Shaken, 3-4 Stunned, 5 Weapon Destroyed, 6 Immobilizied. That would nerf the auto-glance weapons. Have D strength weapons not have to roll for pen, they just automatically strip of a HP.

 master of ordinance wrote:


There are accounts of Tigers taking 100+ hits from 75mm M3, 75mm OQF, 76mm and 85mm guns at close and even point blank range. Panzer IV's too. Panzer III's could glance a surprising amount of hits. There are accounts of Konigstigers, Churchill VII's and Jagdtigers taking hits from 88mm, 100mm, 90mm and several other high calibre tank killers and just shrugging it off like nothing ever happened. Chuchill I's, II's, III's and IV's in Tunisia and the Desert. Matilda II's which could bounce most shots short of an 88 PAK 36 or a 75 PAK 43.
Hell, every single historical account of tanks in battle state something entirely the opposite to what GW's system depicts and you are trying to tell us happens.

The Glancing hits table represented hits that have struck a particular component such as the running gear or track or gun, or have hit the hull hard enough to shake something loose and/or stun/shock the crew. They are that. Lucky hits that whilst not fatal have truck in a way as to somewhat mitigate the tanks overall performance for the time being. They are not carving huge chunks out of the superstructure, at least not in any way to qualify for the reduction of a HP.

One problem with your thing is that I think comparing WW 2 to 40k is not the right way to do something, as we are talking a supposed 38,000 year gap. But I agree with you, glancing should not strip off a Hull Point, it should just cause a roll on the current damage table with no modifiers.

 Vector Strike wrote:
Play test. Play test, play test. PLAY TEEEEEST!

What kind of game designers doesn't like to test their own game before launching it???

People who don't know how to design games.

GW have no staff that are actual designers, none of them actually have a degree in it, and none of the original designer staff is left.


I think moving the story forward, and not being bad at writing would help them leagues ahead. I mean the black crusade won in the tournament setting, so I have no idea why they wouldn't push the setting forward.

not like Age of Sigmar, but just enough forward, that leaves room for more possibility.

In terms of rules 4th edition with 5th edition ideas mixed in. Vechile rules from 4th and fifth.

 Asherian Command wrote:

 Vector Strike wrote:
Play test. Play test, play test. PLAY TEEEEEST!

What kind of game designers doesn't like to test their own game before launching it???

People who don't know how to design games.

GW have no staff that are actual designers, none of them actually have a degree in it, and none of the original designer staff is left.

And where precisely do you go to "have a degree" in Tabletop Game Design?

Because I'm pretty sure my college doesn't offer such a class.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

 Vector Strike wrote:
Play test. Play test, play test. PLAY TEEEEEST!

What kind of game designers doesn't like to test their own game before launching it???

People who don't know how to design games.

GW have no staff that are actual designers, none of them actually have a degree in it, and none of the original designer staff is left.

And where precisely do you go to "have a degree" in Tabletop Game Design?

Because I'm pretty sure my college doesn't offer such a class.

Tabletop game design does not exist. But Game Design as a field does exist. We are trained in colleges on how to make games, and the first games we make are tabletop games. I made a card game in a few days that was so balanced it was too balanced. I needed to add unfair advantages to the game.

My buddy made a risk esk game, where you select your force from a selection of cards and could do troop deployments with those cards, and then the board was set and boom game.

Tabletop games are incredibly easy to make, especially compared to a video game.

 Asherian Command wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

 Vector Strike wrote:
Play test. Play test, play test. PLAY TEEEEEST!

What kind of game designers doesn't like to test their own game before launching it???

People who don't know how to design games.

GW have no staff that are actual designers, none of them actually have a degree in it, and none of the original designer staff is left.

And where precisely do you go to "have a degree" in Tabletop Game Design?

Because I'm pretty sure my college doesn't offer such a class.

Tabletop game design does not exist. But Game Design as a field does exist. We are trained in colleges on how to make games, and the first games we make are tabletop games. I made a card game in a few days that was so balanced it was too balanced. I needed to add unfair advantages to the game.

You understand that "Game Design" as a field is not the same as "Tabletop Game Design", yes?

My buddy made a risk esk game, where you select your force from a selection of cards and could do troop deployments with those cards, and then the board was set and boom game.

Risk != Tabletop Game. It's a board game.

Tabletop games are incredibly easy to make, especially compared to a video game.

And yet, there are more people doing independent designed and funded video games than miniature games.

Crazy, right?

I get that you're excited to go into video game design and whatnot, but that doesn't make you anything near the expert your posts smack of attempting to convey.

I wouldn't change much about the game. I like randomness, real life is kind of that way and we are playing war games not drafts. GW invented points and balance for war games. There were no points or talk of balance at Waterloo, Ypres, Somme or for that matter on any of the battle fields described in 30/40k. I like war games because they try to represent large scale conflict. I would argue for more not less but I know I'm in the minority here.

I would change black library or rather just move it back a few years to the great great thing it used to be.

No. Hull points ARE NOT a reasonable or realistic way of showing damage.

Ineffective hit + ineffective hit + ineffective hit does NOT equal a destroyed tank. Period. Too many people started playing during 5th Ed.'s version of vehicles being too stout and were relieved when GW introduced HP's. You can roll gak in glitter but it is still gak.

What should be done for tanks is a vector system. Measure exactly where the shot will go, then consult a chart on the tank's systems. Something simple, nothing to complex, like the engine, ammo, and fuel. Any penetrating hit successfully hits those and your tank dies either from a fast spreading fire or a respectable explosion.

 amanita wrote:
No. Hull points ARE NOT a reasonable or realistic way of showing damage.

Ineffective hit + ineffective hit + ineffective hit does NOT equal a destroyed tank. Period. Too many people started playing during 5th Ed.'s version of vehicles being too stout and were relieved when GW introduced HP's. You can roll gak in glitter but it is still gak.

Again, I'm not advocating that, changing glances to roll on the 5th edition glance table is an easy way to keep both. Glances are lucky hits that hit systems or scare the crew but don't do any major damage, while pens, which would take off HP, actually do damage to vital parts of the tank and kill crewman/damage the innards of the tank.