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.

It's another one of those "cool design concept, but the mechanics don't really work reliably" things, kinda like the "super-fast Dark Eldar that never slow down" thing. That's what they're meant to be doing, but the mechanics just don't fly.

Alcibiades wrote:
The Tyranid antitank weapons are the Rupture Cannon (S10) and Heavy Venom Cannon (S9).

Both of these have AP of 4, and the point of both, from a design perspective, seems to be not to destroy vehicles, but to immobilize, shake, and stun them, so as to allow assault critters to catch vehicles.

A lot of the Tyranid codex seems to me to be designed around this kind of thing -- keeping the enemy pinned, keeping it from moving -- but since I seem to the only person who thinks he's noticed this, maybe I'm nuts.

Seems to me these two wouldn't be unfairly affected by my initial suggestion; they still have a decent chance of a pen, they're just half as likely to glance as they were before. Which, given that I made the suggestion partly as a means of improving vehicles' survivability, doesn't seem hugely unreasonable.

Alcibiades wrote:
The Tyranid antitank weapons are the Rupture Cannon (S10) and Heavy Venom Cannon (S9).

Both of these have AP of 4, and the point of both, from a design perspective, seems to be not to destroy vehicles, but to immobilize, shake, and stun them, so as to allow assault critters to catch vehicles.

A lot of the Tyranid codex seems to me to be designed around this kind of thing -- keeping the enemy pinned, keeping it from moving -- but since I seem to the only person who thinks he's noticed this, maybe I'm nuts.

And thats why they are bad units, B.c it doesnt work this way.

Alcibiades wrote:

A lot of the Tyranid codex seems to me to be designed

HAHAHAHAHA!

The best option I see coming out of this is this:

Keep the VDT the same as current so glances can't kill the vehicle itself.
Give glancing his a save, aka an 'Armor save' that is always taken except against AP1 or AP1/2. Removing glancing doing hullpoint takeaway.

That way glances still do damage, just can't kill the vehicle unless its AP1/2. Pentrating hits are more efficient and would emphasize a need for anti-tank and not mid-str high volume fire. In turn debuffing Punishers, Scatbikes, etc.

shank911 wrote:
The best option I see coming out of this is this:

Keep the VDT the same as current so glances can't kill the vehicle itself.
Give glancing his a save, aka an 'Armor save' that is always taken except against AP1 or AP1/2. Removing glancing doing hullpoint takeaway.

That way glances still do damage, just can't kill the vehicle unless its AP1/2. Pentrating hits are more efficient and would emphasize a need for anti-tank and not mid-str high volume fire. In turn debuffing Punishers, Scatbikes, etc.

IDK I'm in favor of redoing the "to hit and to wound chart" and make everything a Toughness and no AV.

Ffyllotek wrote:
Is this a better idea than something very simple, for example, increasing all vehicles HP by 1 or 2? I tend to think additional mechanics just slow down the game.

How would that fix anything? All that is doing is encouraging even more glancing spam.
Revise the HP system so that vehicles aren't armorless MC, and that would fix the problem.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

licclerich wrote:
This has to be the most pathetic topic on gaming ever!!!!!!!!!
NO GLANCING HITS....there done.

Congrats, you just made necrons even worse than that time they were using a 3rd ed book in 5th ed.
Then again, Gauss does need to be rewritten so that it doesn't rely on glances. The fact that a special rule that an army needs in order to deal with a type of unit relies on another rule is the worse.