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.

We all know that MCs are better than vehicles, etc, etc. I'm breaking a solution I had out of a previous dead thread to try and get some input. What'cha think?

I love the unified idea, but I think it could stand to be much, much simpler. Separate MCs somehow, something like this:

Vehicles: Glancing Hits: Vehicles ignore a number of glancing hits per turn equal to the number of hull points they have lost.
Ex: If a vehicle has lost two hull points in a battle, it will take three glancing hits in one player turn to remove a third hull point.
Ex: If a vehicle loses it's first hull point in a turn, it will take two additional glancing hits to remove another hull point.

Vehicles: Penetrating Hit: Lose one hull point. Roll on the damage chart. +1 to rolls if the weapon is AP2, +2 if the weapon is AP1.
Vehicles only suffer the Shaken and Staggered effects for one turn.

Monstrous Creatures: Roll on the damage chart each time this model loses a wound. +1 to rolls if the weapon is S9, +2 if the weapon is S10.
Monstrous Creatures choose one damage effect at the beginning of each of their controller's turns. That effect is automatically repaired.

Gargantuan Creatures and Superheavy Vehicles ignore all results of 6 or lower.

Damage chart:
1-2: Shaken - Weapons must fire at closest enemy target in Line of Sight.
3: Staggered - Model moves at full speed in a direction of a scatter die.If a Vehicle hits a unit, treat it as a Tank Shock or Ram as appropriate. If a Walker or Creature contacts an enemy model, treat them as locked in close combat.
4: Weapon Damage - One random weapon may not fire.
5: Immobilized - Model may no longer move.
6: Collapse - Reduce all Armor Values and Saves by 1.
7+ : Direct Hit - Lose one extra HP or Wound.

Seems okay. I'd change 3 to half full speed.

7 seems like it does a bit too much against some MC's so they might need more wounds or something.

pm713 wrote:
Seems okay. I'd change 3 to half full speed.

7 seems like it does a bit too much against some MC's so they might need more wounds or something.

No they don't. They already get more wounds than an equivalent vehicle has HP. I must say I am not a fan of the current system or anything like it. I think vehicles should just lose the chart all together. Move over to wounds, toughness and saves, but have a few rules that distinguish them from MCs so the current anti-vehicle weapons work against them and anti-MC stuff doesn't. It is a harder fix, but I feel it would be better overall. I feel the current vehicle rules tries to hard (and fails miserably) in trying to inject realism into a game where it really isn't needed. Always had a problem with a vehicle being made useless with a single hit and a creature with organs and such able to outlast just about anything. The vehicle damage chart imo has been the entire problem. Why not just get rid of the problem?

 NorseSig wrote:

pm713 wrote:
Seems okay. I'd change 3 to half full speed.

7 seems like it does a bit too much against some MC's so they might need more wounds or something.

No they don't. They already get more wounds than an equivalent vehicle has HP. I must say I am not a fan of the current system or anything like it. I think vehicles should just lose the chart all together. Move over to wounds, toughness and saves, but have a few rules that distinguish them from MCs so the current anti-vehicle weapons work against them and anti-MC stuff doesn't. It is a harder fix, but I feel it would be better overall. I feel the current vehicle rules tries to hard (and fails miserably) in trying to inject realism into a game where it really isn't needed. Always had a problem with a vehicle being made useless with a single hit and a creature with organs and such able to outlast just about anything. The vehicle damage chart imo has been the entire problem. Why not just get rid of the problem?

Not all of them do. Wraithlords only have 3.

I definitely feel that either they both should have a damage chart, or neither.

I swing more to neither having the chart myself.

I've proposed a few times in a few threads now to entirely unify both types into one common unit type. Its the most work of all the likely solutions, but would ultimately fix a huge part of the game.

My proposal is this:

Make everything toughness values and armour saves.

Multi-wound models suffer a "critical hit" if the weapon didn't allow an armour save (AP of the weapon beats their armour, doesn't count cover saves or invulnerable saves, just armour saves). Critical Hits roll on a random table similar to what penetrating hits do now.

So you can try to glance out a vehicle or monstrous creature, but you won't reduce its combat effectiveness as you do so. If you hit them with actual anti-tank stuff though, you'll inflict lasting damage. Models with Eternal Warrior can't be instant death'd and don't suffer critical hits. Weapons with Instant Death add a bonus to the critical hit table.

 Yarium wrote:
My proposal is this:

Make everything toughness values and armour saves.

Multi-wound models suffer a "critical hit" if the weapon didn't allow an armour save (AP of the weapon beats their armour, doesn't count cover saves or invulnerable saves, just armour saves). Critical Hits roll on a random table similar to what penetrating hits do now.

So you can try to glance out a vehicle or monstrous creature, but you won't reduce its combat effectiveness as you do so. If you hit them with actual anti-tank stuff though, you'll inflict lasting damage. Models with Eternal Warrior can't be instant death'd and don't suffer critical hits. Weapons with Instant Death add a bonus to the critical hit table.

Instead of another random table to roll on, we could just do what AoS does and have a chart that reduces effectiveness as they go down in wounds.

Which doesn't work very well with lower wound MC's because they'll have an incredibly fast drop in performance. It's worth remembering that while AoS monsters lose power with wounds they have a lot more wounds.

pm713 wrote:
Which doesn't work very well with lower wound MC's because they'll have an incredibly fast drop in performance. It's worth remembering that while AoS monsters lose power with wounds they have a lot more wounds.

And whose to say that with 8th edition 40k, this unified vehicle/monster unit type won't have a lot more wounds? I'd certainly be okay with it.

 krodarklorr wrote:

pm713 wrote:
Which doesn't work very well with lower wound MC's because they'll have an incredibly fast drop in performance. It's worth remembering that while AoS monsters lose power with wounds they have a lot more wounds.

And whose to say that with 8th edition 40k, this unified vehicle/monster unit type won't have a lot more wounds? I'd certainly be okay with it.

Seems more likely they won't.

So while everyone complains about MC's being too tough we're talking about adding wounds....

Hey, if lascannons go back to 2D6 wounds, I'd be all for it.

Martel732 wrote:
Hey, if lascannons go back to 2D6 wounds, I'd be all for it.

Well, that's a bit much.

Adding wounds is probably OK if it's possible to take them off faster and/or diminish effectiveness as you go.

The problem now is that you either have "lose one wound" or "die instantly". Reduce the swinginess, and you can more easily add more wounds without making things utterly immortal.

I have never seen GW with 40K is to release a new edition that completely invalidates existing codices, or requires "extensive" erratas.

I heard this happened when Rogue Trader became 40K, but I was too young to play back then.
The closest 2 examples I can think of is A) when 40K introduced Hull Points they had to release an FAQ to introduce the new stat to each individual vehicle. I really don't see them doing this again, since it would mean "changing" the exisit stat, rather than "adding" a new one. And they are just now doing FAQs for 7th ed.
And B) Age of Sigmar, and we know how that went for GW

So assuming GW wants to keep making money on the dozens and dozens of Codices and sub-faction books released in the past 2-3 years, it is a VERY safe bet that 8th edition will keep these existing books in circulation and valid.

Introducing a Damage chart (either a shared one or separate form the vehicle one) for MCs and GMCs is no only a good idea to balance with vehicles, but is the most LIKELY of all the changes propose. If they change at all, that is.

-

 Galef wrote:
The one thing I have never seen GW with 40K is to release a new edition that completely invalidates existing codices.

I heard this happened when Rogue Trader became 40K, but I was too young to play back then.
The closest 2 examples I can think of is A) when 40K introduced Hull Points they had to release an FAQ to introduce the new stat to each individual vehicle. I really don't see them doing this again, since it would mean "changing" the exisit stat, rather than "adding" a new one.
And B) Age of Sigmar, and we know how that went for GW

So assuming GW wants to keep making money on the dozens and dozens of Codices and sub-faction books released in the past 2 years, it is a VERY safe bet that 8th edition will keep these existing books in circulation and valid.

Introducing a Damage chart (either a shared one or separate formt he vehicle one) for MCs and GMCs is no only a good idea to balance with vehicles, but is the most LIKELY of all the changes propose. If they change at all, that is.

-

Well, you are probably right. In which case, nothing significant can ever really change in 40k, and it continues in a downward spiral. If that's the case, so be it. I can make a pretty penny off my models.

 krodarklorr wrote:

Well, you are probably right. In which case, nothing significant can ever really change in 40k, and it continues in a downward spiral. If that's the case, so be it. I can make a pretty penny off my models.

That doesn't mean that significant change is not possible, it just means that core rules changes will be limited to the parameters of the existing rules, stats, etc of Codices. So a Damage chart applying anytime an MC/GC takes a wound is entirely do-able. Or making weapon rules like "Melta" and "Ordinance" do D3 wounds to MCs. Plenty of big changes can be made using the "structure" that exists.

Take 6th to 7th psychic powers for example: In 6th, Psykers had Mastery Level to determine how many powers they could roll for and cast. 7th ed used this existing stat and turned it into the number of dice a Psyker generated each turn. We all know how dramatic the change was to add a Psychic Phase, and whether you like it, or think it's a mess, GW made the change without needing to alter the stats or anything for existing Psykers.

-

 Galef wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:

Well, you are probably right. In which case, nothing significant can ever really change in 40k, and it continues in a downward spiral. If that's the case, so be it. I can make a pretty penny off my models.

That doesn't mean that significant change is not possible, it just means that core rules changes will be limited to the parameters of the existing rules, stats, etc of Codices. So a Damage chart applying anytime an MC/GC takes a wound is entirely do-able. Or making weapon rules like "Melta" and "Ordinance" do D3 wounds to MCs. Plenty of big changes can be made using the "structure" that exists.

Take 6th to 7th psychic powers for example: In 6th, Psykers had Mastery Level to determine how many powers they could roll for and cast. 7th ed used this existing stat and turned it into the number of dice a Psyker generated each turn. We all know how dramatic the change was to add a Psychic Phase, and whether you like it, or think it's a mess, GW made the change without needing to alter the stats or anything for existing Psykers.

-

Well, they'd better make some ground-breaking changes. The game currently could stand a complete rebuild, like AoS.

 krodarklorr wrote:

Well, they'd better make some ground-breaking changes. The game currently could stand a complete rebuild, like AoS.

While I'd be all for a "Core" rules rebuild, I really hope they don't do what AoS did. I had just got my 2500pt Lizardmen fully painted after a year of hard work, then all the rules changed and the rules and army book became worthless. And with no points costs, the army was worthless to play.
GW finally realized that armies need some measure to compare a models "worth" so that players can better agree on what to play. Hopefully GW learned some lessons with AoS and can apply them to 8th ed 40K.

One of the ways to do this (back on topic, btw) is to make a single damage chart for Vehicles and MCs. Simplifying or flat out getting rid of some of the charts would be nice too. Perils should just take a wound, Stomp should just be 1 small blast at the unit's Str. stuff like that

-

I do believe that when they made the change to vehicles having Hull Points, they included it as an appendix in the core rulebook. That's when we learned that Land Speeders had 2 Hull Points, Rhino's 3 HP, and a Land Raider had 4. Was very surprised to see Defilers having 4HP at that time too. In any case, it filled a whole of 4 pages, and that's including all the Sisters of Battle vehicles too!

 Yarium wrote:
I do believe that when they made the change to vehicles having Hull Points, they included it as an appendix in the core rulebook. That's when we learned that Land Speeders had 2 Hull Points, Rhino's 3 HP, and a Land Raider had 4. Was very surprised to see Defilers having 4HP at that time too. In any case, it filled a whole of 4 pages, and that's including all the Sisters of Battle vehicles too!

And that was great at the time because it just added a stat to existing models that was easy to look up. However there are so many more units now, so it would probably more than 4 pages.
"Changing" AV to Toughness + Armour save would be cool, but VERY confusing to new players, which is why I hope GW finds a smart way to update the core rules that allows exisiting PRINTED codices to remain valid.

-

 Galef wrote:

 Yarium wrote:
I do believe that when they made the change to vehicles having Hull Points, they included it as an appendix in the core rulebook. That's when we learned that Land Speeders had 2 Hull Points, Rhino's 3 HP, and a Land Raider had 4. Was very surprised to see Defilers having 4HP at that time too. In any case, it filled a whole of 4 pages, and that's including all the Sisters of Battle vehicles too!

And that was great at the time because it just added a stat to existing models that was easy to look up. However there are so many more units now, so it would probably more than 4 pages.
"Changing" AV to Toughness + Armour save would be cool, but VERY confusing to new players, which is why I hope GW finds a smart way to update the core rules that allows exisiting PRINTED codices to remain valid.

-

Even if it's more than 4 pages, so long as it's clear, it won't be confusing. Sure wasn't during that change, and this type of change would be very much in line with that. Consider, even the Space Marine's would have the following:

Rhino
Razorback
Land Speeder (all variants)
Land Raider (all variants)
Whirlwind
Predator
Vindicator
Dreadnaught
Ironclad Dreadnaught
Drop Pod
Storm Talon
Storm Raven

Those are all the codex items. That's really not too bad. Would take up half a page at most. And they'd have one of the longer listings.

Not to mention that a change of everything to Toughness & Armour saves would also allow bikes to be, perhaps, most appropriately set as a combination of man & machine, like little one-wound vehicles.

And, of course, that's pretending that GW also doesn't go the way of a Living Ruleset. They already take a hit on printing codexes, or barely break even, so doing a Living Ruleset is not out of the picture. A Living Ruleset would allow them to have all their info, including the modified stats, in one convenient place.