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 been throwing some ideas about a bit lately, and been trying to justify Vehicles having to use the Armour Value system, but I really can't think of why you would implement the system in the first place. First, the idea of implementing a whole new system to simulate damage is weird enough in itself for me, when the rest of the game is geared towards making all damage general instead of vividly described, and secondly, why the zog would you choose to make a system that makes vehicles MORE vulnerable to the weapons used to kill them?! I don't believe MCs have a table to determine if their blatter ruptured or nonsense like that. I guess the idea was to make a system that would make Vehicles utter invincible to some, normal weapons (Lasguns, etc.), but represent how stronger weapons could make a Vehicle go BOOM for the cinematic appeal of both, but we don't do that for other models, do we? I mean, Instant Death is one case, but we don't test to see if our Guardsman lost his arm when shot at by an Ork Shoota. Why do it to Vehicles and hinder them that way?

Now, I am no mathematician, but I know numbers. If you throw, say, 10 Bolter rounds at a Trukk, that will be roughly 1-2 Hull Points stripped - What would be different if the Trukk had T 6? Pretty much the same thing. You could give it Armour Saves too, such as 6+ for Trukks (so the Bolters will ignore it outright) or 3+ for Land Raiders (So you got to use Melta on the duckers, or you won't do jack squat). Make a general rule of negating one point of T when at the sides of a vehicle and two when behind, or simply make three T values and we have facing as well. Melta doesn't work against this? Well, you could rework the rule I reckon. Poison would be overpowered then? New Special USR: Vehicle. Is mechanical, will ignore Poison.

What are your thoughts on this? Is there a reason for the Armour Values, or is it simply leftovers from a time where everything was complicated and Rhinos could tank Lascannon shots? Please reply, because frankly, I can't say.

Insaniak proposed some rules about a year ago changing AV to Toughness.

Here's the link:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/533529.page

 Happyjew wrote:
Insaniak proposed some rules about a year ago changing AV to Toughness.

Here's the link:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/533529.page

That isn't exactly what I ment - The thing with AV to T is true, but I just want to go away from Glancing and Penetrating Hits, as I explained with the Guardsman. I don't really feel we need rules for how singular models react to shots, just what damage the take, in Wounds or Hullpoints or whatever.

Regardless, my point was that I want you people's opinion on the matter, not someone else' discussion.

So, what are your opinion on what I wrote? Do we need AV and Damage Tables? Do T present some new problems for our large machines and walkers that I don't see? Why would/wouldn't GW make this change?

The only reason to use separate damage resolution system for 40k vehicles , is legacy issues .

Originally 40k used the same rules as WHFB, to allow player to cross over between games.*
But WHFB rules did not cope with the 'power' of the vehicles that well back then.(Vehicles were few and far between ,and rather powerful back then.)
So the game devs decided to add on separate rules for vehicles simply to make them appear more special, than 'tricked out chariots'.

There is absolutely no reason to use multiple damage resolution systems for the current simple game play of 40k.
Either extend AV values down to cover infantry, or extend toughness and cover saves up to cover vehicles.

Lanrak wrote:
The only reason to use separate damage resolution system for 40k vehicles , is legacy issues .

Originally 40k used the same rules as WHFB, to allow player to cross over between games.*
But WHFB rules did not cope with the 'power' of the vehicles that well back then.(Vehicles were few and far between ,and rather powerful back then.)
So the game devs decided to add on separate rules for vehicles simply to make them appear more special, than 'tricked out chariots'.

There is absolutely no reason to use multiple damage resolution systems for the current simple game play of 40k.
Either extend AV values down to cover infantry, or extend toughness and cover saves up to cover vehicles.

Second, I go with second. So, is it just leftover from previous releases, where a rule just get integrated without thought of the results or what? When it comes down to it, the only difference to Vehicles and normal units is that they word their "Toughness" roll different and the Damage Tables, and that they don't get Armour Saves like anything else in the game? If that's the case, then I call bad design.

Damage tables make sense to me, and it would make sense to have one for monstrous creatures as well though they probably would need their own chart. The added size would make it less likely that any given hit damages a critical component or more likely that the damage caused by the hit affects fewer systems than a smaller basic trooper.

Armor instead of toughness/armor saves doesn't make as much sense.

When I mentioned extending armour saves down to cover infantry.i meant simply to adopt a new system .
All models get an armour value from 1 to 15.
All weapons get an AP value from 5 to 20.

To pass an armour save roll a D6 and add your armour value .
If this total is higher than the weapon hit AP, you pass your armour save roll.

The chance for the weapon to damage the soft target behind the armour ,is still separate to the armour roll.

The basic chance to damage is on the weapon profile as the damage value.
EG
Lasgun.
Effective range 24" Armour piercing 5 Damage value 4+ Attacks 1 Notes.Rapid Fire .

Means the lasgun will cause a wound on a creature with Resilience 0 on a roll of 4+
Will wound a Resilience 1 creature on a 5+, Resilience 2 creature on a 6+, and not be able to wound a resilience 3 creature.

(The targets Resilience (toughness replacement) value 0 to 3 is the modifiers to this basic damage value.)


Multi-damage models like MCs and vehicles simply loose a weapon/attack or % of speed depending if they take an 'armament/arm hit' or a 'mobility hit.'

All this is for a complete re-write using stat line directly, no charts or table or pointless special rules .(ONLY special abilities get special rules!)

The problem with using WHFB based rules for 40k is there is not enough variation to cover the higher tec.
So the game relies on far too many pages of additional rules .
Even removing the separate AV v Str for vehicles, still leaves additional rules for Invunerable saves and USRs , codex specific special rules.

If you are going to remove over complication , why not fix the lot while you are at it?

Lanrak wrote:
When I mentioned extending armour saves down to cover infantry.i meant simply to adopt a new system .
All models get an armour value from 1 to 15.
All weapons get an AP value from 5 to 20.

To pass an armour save roll a D6 and add your armour value .
If this total is higher than the weapon hit AP, you pass your armour save roll.

The chance for the weapon to damage the soft target behind the armour ,is still separate to the armour roll.

The basic chance to damage is on the weapon profile as the damage value.
EG
Lasgun.
Effective range 24" Armour piercing 5 Damage value 4+ Attacks 1 Notes.Rapid Fire .

Means the lasgun will cause a wound on a creature with Resilience 0 on a roll of 4+
Will wound a Resilience 1 creature on a 5+, Resilience 2 creature on a 6+, and not be able to wound a resilience 3 creature.

(The targets Resilience (toughness replacement) value 0 to 3 is the modifiers to this basic damage value.)


Multi-damage models like MCs and vehicles simply loose a weapon/attack or % of speed depending if they take an 'armament/arm hit' or a 'mobility hit.'

All this is for a complete re-write using stat line directly, no charts or table or pointless special rules .(ONLY special abilities get special rules!)

The problem with using WHFB based rules for 40k is there is not enough variation to cover the higher tec.
So the game relies on far too many pages of additional rules .
Even removing the separate AV v Str for vehicles, still leaves additional rules for Invunerable saves and USRs , codex specific special rules.

If you are going to remove over complication , why not fix the lot while you are at it?

Wow.... Pass

If you had a T value poison would make you very unhappy.

It works now, sometimes I can take 5 or 6 shots in cover before my pred dies or I take 1 just depends on the dice God

 The Wise Dane wrote:
I have been throwing some ideas about a bit lately, and been trying to justify Vehicles having to use the Armour Value system, but I really can't think of why you would implement the system in the first place. First, the idea of implementing a whole new system to simulate damage is weird enough in itself for me, when the rest of the game is geared towards making all damage general instead of vividly described, and secondly, why the zog would you choose to make a system that makes vehicles MORE vulnerable to the weapons used to kill them?! I don't believe MCs have a table to determine if their blatter ruptured or nonsense like that. I guess the idea was to make a system that would make Vehicles utter invincible to some, normal weapons (Lasguns, etc.), but represent how stronger weapons could make a Vehicle go BOOM for the cinematic appeal of both, but we don't do that for other models, do we? I mean, Instant Death is one case, but we don't test to see if our Guardsman lost his arm when shot at by an Ork Shoota. Why do it to Vehicles and hinder them that way?

Now, I am no mathematician, but I know numbers. If you throw, say, 10 Bolter rounds at a Trukk, that will be roughly 1-2 Hull Points stripped - What would be different if the Trukk had T 6? Pretty much the same thing. You could give it Armour Saves too, such as 6+ for Trukks (so the Bolters will ignore it outright) or 3+ for Land Raiders (So you got to use Melta on the duckers, or you won't do jack squat).

Vehicles are generally less vulnerable to small arms fire this way. A single lasgun or bolter is never going to explode a trukk and they are never going to scratch anything AV11+. A lascannon or melta gun can potentially 1 shot kill anything in the game. I shot my embarked plasma cannon 3" away from my unscratched rhino the other day. I lucked out with a hit, but if it was toughness only, I wouldn't have worried at all, since I'd only lose 1 wound. I think it's ok as-is. So while you can fire a few hundred rounds at a honda/ford sedan or whatever, it will probably keep rolling down the road for a while unless you hit the driver/gas tank (or airbag to KO the driver).

I'm not a fan of the hull points/VDT in general - av 10 vehicles seem to die to regular gun fire way too fast and the jump form AV10 to AV11 is immensely more survivable - but if I had to change one rule, that wouldn't be it.