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.

 Tyran wrote:
held together by duck tape

Captain she's quacking up!!

The existence of Hull points wasn't a bad thing... but giving vehicles what were effectively Wounds but without a corresponding saving throw put vehicles at a massive disadvantage compared to troops.

It was a partial solution, I agree.

What Hull Points did was open up design room for guns which could erode a tank to oblivion, over big guns which could just blat them in a single shot.

I still prefer T/W/Sv, despite that not being a popular opinion.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
What Hull Points did was open up design room for guns which could erode a tank to oblivion, over big guns which could just blat them in a single shot.

Small arms already could up to a point by stripping off weapons and immobilisation ultimately leading to a wrecked result, but there was the parking lot problem where light vehicles could withstand a seemingly endless sequence of stunned and shaken results while either ignoring them (daemonic/eldar/etc) or simply not caring (troops in a transport on an objective).

If vehicles that had suffered critical damage (penetrating hit and/or loss of weapon/mobility) took +1 on their damage rolls it would have soften them up a bit.

For transports in particular it was as much the transport rule as the vehicle - forced to disembark to score?, able to be assaulted after your vehicle blew up? - all things that 5th edition could have used.

I don't think there is a substantial difference between glance on a 6+, weapon destroyed/immobilised on a 5+, Rhino destroyed with 3 weapon destroyed/immobilised results and wound on a 6+, save on a 3+, die with 3 wounds. If anything, Rhinos got tougher against anti-personnel weapons with the move to wounds + saves in 8th than in 5th! A Rhino had 10 wounds, so still took more shots to kill with a heavy bolter than in 5th, even once they moved heavy bolters to D2. The Rhino could now be hurt by S4 and below from all angles too, but given you need 18 hits to strip a single wound off a 10 wound Rhino, it is unlikely to shift the dial much except when finishing off the last wound or two.

I'm focusing on glances only, because once penetrating hits are accounted for (S6+ when talking about Rhinos) then the durability is much less favourable for the 5th edition rules. A penetrating hit is equivalent to a 5+ save and has a 1/3rd chance of outright killing the vehicle rather than just debilitating it. None of this is accounting for Shaken/Stunned, which further neutralise the vehicle on the survival equivalent of a passed save.

The ability to one-shot tanks from a penetrating hit was entirely lost, except for a few titan-hunting weapons. In practice, I recognise that an average of 3 penetrating hits with a lascannon vs 3 woundings with D6 (mean 3.5) lascannons to kill a Rhino is a wash, but lighter weapons like autocannons really suffer.

When hull points were a thing, it took a whopping 66% less shots to kill a Rhino with lighter weapons than in 5th. It was far to big a swing from 5th edition and was the equivalent of an 8th edition Rhino having no armour save and half of the wounds.

Overall, vehicles were more durable after 8th than they were in 5th IMO.

How many times did everybody else see a rhino get got by boltguns or equivalent?
I think i saw it happen once to an immobilised rhino?
I remember rhinos getting taken out with krak grenades more clearly but i'm presuming my experience is an outlier.

 SirDonlad wrote:
How many times did everybody else see a rhino get got by boltguns or equivalent?
I think i saw it happen once to an immobilised rhino?
I remember rhinos getting taken out with krak grenades more clearly but i'm presuming my experience is an outlier.

Almost never, maybe once too. Boltguns could only hurt Rhinos in the rear arc. Saw more get killed by S4 in melee because there could be a much greater volume of attacks from, say, a charging mob of boys (which then hit rear armour regardless of facing in 6th). My Chimeras were slightly more vulnerable with AV10 side armour.

The example above was to highlight one of the examples most in favour of the 5th edition rules for durability, and how it is still less durable than vs the same weapons in 8th, to show how much hull points fethed vehicles in 6th and 7th.

Most S6 or S7 weapons were far more nasty against light vehicles in 5th, because adding in a few penetrating hits really ramped up the lethality. Most of these weapons only went to Damage 2 or D3 or maaaybe 3 in 8th, which just didn't do as much to a 10 wound vehicle.

The other aspect that made it a pretty lethal environment for vehicles was AP2 giving a +1 and AP1 giving a +2 on the damage chart roll.

Are you leaning toward 'vehicles needed more hullpoints' or 'vehicles didnt need hullpoints'?

 SirDonlad wrote:
The other aspect that made it a pretty lethal environment for vehicles was AP2 giving a +1 and AP1 giving a +2 on the damage chart roll.

Did that get added in 6th? I recall it being a thing but in 5th AP2 gave no bonus and AP1 gave a +1 bonus. AP1 in 4th converted glancing hits into penetrating hits.

Are you leaning toward 'vehicles needed more hullpoints' or 'vehicles didnt need hullpoints'?

The latter, but the former would've helped. However there was enough bookkeeping for vehicles anyway without adding hull points.

I think they just shouldn't have lowered the points so much for transport vehicles in 5th (Rhinos went from 50 to 35 points, Chimeras from 85 to 55, etc.).

 Haighus wrote:
Did that get added in 6th? I recall it being a thing but in 5th AP2 gave no bonus and AP1 gave a +1 bonus. AP1 in 4th converted glancing hits into penetrating hits.

6e added the bonus for AP2, but also changed the chart:

5e:
1-2 - shake/stun
3-4 - weapon destroyed/immobilised
5-6 - wrecked/explodes

6e:
1-3 - shake/stunned
5-6 - weapon destroyed/immobilised
6+ - explodes


5e rolled glancing hit damage at -2 and AP - weapons at an additional -1

6e had no glancing hits (just hull point damage) and AP - weapons had no penalty - so multi-hit high strength low penetration weapons like the wave serpent shield became premium anti-tank while things like krak missiles were downgraded.

I evidently started something. (Sorry?) I have watched multiple SM & IG tanks in my own motor pool killed by bolters (might also be my own bad rolling, but there's that). I actually think it would have been cool to have rules where if the vehicle T wasn't matched or beaten by the weapon you're shooting it with, it could not be destroyed - sort of like how there were optional D&D rules for damage threshold or similar.

But I think more realistically right now, I feel like the game would benefit from firing arcs. Sticking your tank's front left fender out and firing a MILLION weapons (looking at you Repulsor) when I cannot actually see any of the weapons is vaguely immersion breaking (yes yes I know, don't kill me on that, it's a game I know)

You wanna hit me with your turret lascannons? I better be able to see them!

 blockade23 wrote:
I evidently started something. (Sorry?) I have watched multiple SM & IG tanks in my own motor pool killed by bolters (might also be my own bad rolling, but there's that). I actually think it would have been cool to have rules where if the vehicle T wasn't matched or beaten by the weapon you're shooting it with, it could not be destroyed - sort of like how there were optional D&D rules for damage threshold or similar.

But I think more realistically right now, I feel like the game would benefit from firing arcs. Sticking your tank's front left fender out and firing a MILLION weapons (looking at you Repulsor) when I cannot actually see any of the weapons is vaguely immersion breaking (yes yes I know, don't kill me on that, it's a game I know)

You wanna hit me with your turret lascannons? I better be able to see them!

Oh, it definitely happened in the hull point era, I just played very little through 6th and 7th. You only needed an average of 18 hits to glance a Rhino to death with hull points, vs 56 in 5th. That is the difference between a couple of squads of Marines vs an entire army of them shooting at the Rhino's rear arc.

Another possible fix for the hull point system was that only penetrating hits remove hullpoints.

Dunno, that would once again render lighter heavy weapons pretty obsolete?

One suggestion at the time I agreed with in the hull point era was to give vehicles armor saves. Lascannons and melta would just cut through them anyway, but it would slow down being glanced to death. And the value of the save could be adjusted per tank, so if you want something being murdered by ACs, give it a 4+ or worse, but 3+ would really want krack missiles or better.

Not a perfect fix, but IMHO a solid start to one.

As somebody who plays in a regular non tourney 5th ed group every weekend, in my experience it works fine just the way it is if the more simulation style of play is what your after.

AT weapons are designed to kill armor. so they either kill in one shot or they don't. the idea that infantry small arms could hurt heavy armor is laughably non-immersive.

I can understand bolters being able to just barely hurt vehicles from the right armor facing because they are literally APHE RPGs, and you proved your superior command ability on the table by getting into position to exploit the weaker armor.

Every system i play has some way to one shot kill armor rather it is overkill damage in heavy gear or critical hits in classic battle tech.

I think part of the discussion is the issue in 5th that you could waste a lot of penetrating hits if you rolled bad in the damage table, specially against transports and daemon engines that ignored stunned and shaken results (and transports also didn't care about weapon destroyed results)

Hullpoints were a flawed attempt of fix that issue.

Why is it that despite recognising some earlier GW sculpts were super wonky, I still adore them?

Like the RTB01 Combat Wombles. Sure, they were the sea change and the forebears of modern 40K and mass enplasticifcation. But they still stand weirdly, lack detail and options.

And some of the metals released then weren’t all that great in purely practical and aesthetic terms. But they still ooze charisma, which is a silly thing to say about an inanimate lump of lead. Some even exceed GW’s normal cavalier attitude to body proportions and have right Thunderbird bonces.

I turn my nose up at similar, modern day options. But the OG GW ones? Completely charming.

I don’t think it’s just nostalgia, as my nostalgia is a bit after that, 2nd Ed and onward.

Is secondhand nostalgia a thing? Those of us old guard who have fond memories of the old days speak so fondly of them that it gets picked up by younger players?

I guess so. But I don’t think it’s that.

Maybe it’s an affection for the very humble roots of a beloved setting? Essentially going from a bunch of happy-go-lucky but ambitious relative amateurs to the beast it is today - and still seeing elements of that original “sod it, give it a whirl” approach, even if most of it is just background stories and that?

Maybe there’s a certain very British Underdog thing going on. I mean sure, it’s been a looooong time since anyone could describe GW as an underdog. But it’s still gone from basically nowt but some mentalists being glorious to the juggernaut it is today. And it’s not often Britain leads the way in anything these days.

Maybe it’s also my general fondness for anything “punk rock” and cultural anti-establishment petty rebellion?

I think the fact that so many of the old sculpts are clunky and ugly is exactly what gives them charm, in the same way that a really ugly dog is often more endearing than a pedigree showdog.

There's also a certain charm in the fact that so many old, hand-sculpted models look hand-crafted, because of those imperfections. Whether consciously or not, we find an appeal in that, that is missing from so many modern, digitally-sculpted and refined models.

It could be that like an inadvertently hilariously bad movie, they were still made with care and passion, despite the wonky outcome.

And so when compared to someone trying to copy the style, those copies just ring false. Like Deliberately Bad Movies, as opposed to an u-coming sculptor where early citadel type models is genuinely their style?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Or indeed former GW sculptors where….thats just their style. Like Bob Olley

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/433105762/the-mighty-exo-armoured-dwarves-28mm-scale-miniatu

Yes he’s recreating Exo-Armour Squats, sure. But….im pretty sure Bob Olley did the originals. And so yes there’s an element of nostalgia bait to this kick starter? The fact Bob is the original mind behind the original models? It’s…..fine with me. He’s not ripping off anyone else in search of a quick buck. And they’re in that style because that’s always been his style.

Same with Trish Carden, monster sculptor extraordinaire, and her ongoing releases. They look old GW, because she is old GW.

I can't speak to the old rogue trader stuff, but to me the sheer fact that so much fluff revolved around the first born and old space marines makes me nostolgic for mark 7.

Sure, at the time I agree space marines where oversaturated to say the least, but now that the focus is shifted to primaris all I can say is that I miss it.

MkVII definitely has a special place in my heart.

As you said, it was the poster Mk when I too was getting involved.

But also? I’d say when the originals came out they were a step above what came before, as the Design Studio started really settling on each factions design language.

For example? And hopefully the imbedding works (embedding?)



The RTB01 marines. Which were and are still a pretty cool kit and look.



Pretty sure these are the first Metal/Plastic hybrid MkVII? They just seem more….I guess serious? Proportions better, more upright. And that helmet design which isn’t quite Storm Trooper, but gets across they’re not very happy with you and the only cure is a short course of DEATH!

No of course the second pic didn’t work. Why would it? Anyway. This link https://leadadventureforum.com/index.php?topic=105108.90

Scroll down to the Ultramarine squad, yeah?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Pretty sure these are the first Metal/Plastic hybrid MkVII? They just seem more….I guess serious? Proportions better, more upright. And that helmet design which isn’t quite Storm Trooper, but gets across they’re not very happy with you and the only cure is a short course of DEATH!

They are much more refined models, particularly the leg armor and elbow joints. The armor looks more thoughtful, like they knew better how all the joints should fit together as a full powered suit. The beakies, while I love them, always suffered from a bit of "good draft but not quite there."

Although I've long since come around, I remember that my first reaction to the Mk VII was, "oh c'mon, they slapped a darth vader grill on a space marine!" I was very surprised that they had dropped the beaky helmet, as I mistakenly considered it iconic and untouchable as a design choice.

It’d definitely that odd thing. Maybe best known as bucking `sequelitis’ where all that followed were objectively more accomplished. But the original still can be touch for sheer ambition?

Which may be what annoys me about modern equivalent.

The medium has moved on. Those, such as Bob Olley and Trish Carden have a built in pass, because they’re not pretending, that’s just their style.

But all these Rogue Trader imitators are maybe just manbunned hipsters desperately pretending they were actually there at the time, and no simply person of frankly limited talent that found a way to make money?

I dunno. This is still something bothering my brain.

I wonder if it has to do with the difference between guidelines and rules. Especially in the 80s, the GW stuff was more loosely defined. "This is more or less a Space Marine, but I'm adding a skull here instead of an aquila, and a pouch here just because." As GW became more successful and 40k became a brand, the guidelines turned into rules. "This *must* go here because that's in our design bible." And as the method for sculpting changed to digital, the rules became more cemented by the technology. No longer can a sculptor add a pouch with a quick blob of greenstuff. The limits are in the software, hardened by corporate styleguides.

By extension, the Oldhammer/Rogue Trader imitators are less following their own practiced style (as Olley and Carden and others do), but are following what they see as "the rules of Oldhammer design" which is more akin to following a corporate styleguide.

This is all a guess, but I have the same inchoate feeling as you do, and I'm just trying to account for it.

You may very well have nailed it!

Sculptors all contributing and chipping in and being weird and developing and bouncing off each other.

And so, not dumping on intentional pretenders? That design room anarchy is just missing. As in they’re just replicating, not pushing, and if they do push? It’s in an isolation the predecessors didn’t know.

How is your hunt for Man o' War stuff going, MDG?

Haven’t started yet.

No sign of my old stuff at Dad’s, so it’s a From Scratch job.

Just need to bide my time until inheritance has shaken out. Then I’ll easily be able to buy a home lock, stock and barrel, leaving me rent and mortgage free.

Oh there will be such a collection then!