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.

Alot of tanks have a hard time dealing with monstrous creatures... especially when there are lots of them on the battlefield. To help remedy this, how about a special Anti-Monster tank shell, much like the Anti-Tank round?

For 20 points, a tank with a non-barrage ordanance weapon may purchase a single anti-monster tank shell. Roll to hit using the crew's ballistic skill. The round does not scatter, and does not use a template. This special round does D3 wounds to the monster, instead of only 1, after saves.

The round uses the strength and AP of the normal weapon. For example, a leman russ with a battle cannon can fire an anti-monster round with S8 AP3, while a Demolisher can fire one with S10 AP2.

1. Roll to-hit (If it hits, proceed to #2)
2. Roll to-wound (If it wounds, proceed to #3)
3. Opponent rolls armor/cover/invulnerable save if applicable (If save is failed, proceed to #4. If save is passed, the round is wasted.)
4. Roll a D3. This many wounds are done to the creature, instead of only 1. Note that this is not in addition to the first wound caused. Only a total of 3 wounds are possible.

Any thoughts?

Too powerful at D3 wounds, there's usually a small number of monstrous units in any army so this would be overkill The only army that has a lot of monstrous is Tyranids, and you can shoot your antitank at the TMCs since they don't have vehicles. The strength of the battlecannon is it's area effect, not it's killing power against a hard target.

I personally still think there needs to be a more general re-balance between MCs and vehicles, although the points costs of multi-wound creatures would likely need to be slightly adjusted if this rule came into being.

My idea was this:


The "Headshot" rule

Any attack that is greater than the target's Toughness and wounds on an unmodified 'to wound' roll of '6' inflicts D3 wounds instead of just one. Only a single armor/cover/invulnerable save is made against the attack and if passed all D3 wounds are ignored.

This arises from having to take out many many Fexes and Tyrants. Just make the Carnifex/Tyrant or say its upgrades more expensive. Not all monsterous creatures should be penalised because people are using too many Fexes. Tomb Spyders? They aren't all that great to begin with. Daemonhosts? They are hit or miss. Most armies have very few MCs as snoogums pointed out. I don't want my Blood Thirster taking 3 wounds (however unlikely) that easily. How about a rule that states if an army is using more than 3 Carnifex's their base cost become 100 points. That way the players only using 1-3 aren't penalised and those that want to go Godzilla have to pay for it. The cost is minimal but people don't want to spend 60 points on nothing. I think a lot of armies would begin using 3 Fexes only. I also think there are going to be a lot of cookie cutter Nid armies coming out and those are just boring.

My rule (personally) isn't designed to penalize Godzilla lists.

I see a general imbalance in 40k between the vehicle and the multi-wound creature. They have the instant death rule, but it only applies to low Toughness creatures. There needs to be a chance to kill multi-wound creatures in a single shot (or at least severly wound them) to help address this balance.

Yes, all MCs should likely go down a tiny bit in cost if this rule was adopted, but I really think it would make the game more fair and balanced.

I would just do something simple like ordinance blasts cause two wounds instead of 1. That covers almost all of the armies (minus orks).

Another edit gone wrong.

Once again this problem comes from having to face too many Carnifexes and Tyrants. Why not put a 0-3 limit on them or just raise the points cost slightly. Its the only way to properly fix this problem. Otherwise every other army gets nerfed. Nids can have 8 monsterous creatures, no other army can field that many that I know of. Each have 4-5 wounds and can regenerate. I think the Assault Cannon was designed for these guys. I have always abhorred using them but they are effective. For years people could have fielded 9 Tomb Spyders and no one ever complained about that because no one does field 9 of them.

Gabe, I like your concept and I think it would work.  I like Yaks too.  But I dont think it's enough, what if you roll a D3 = 1? 

Last year I posted another alternative; shell based Ordinance weapons should all cause AP1 instant death to a target model under the hole.

A few caveats, no sniping! squads can still remove any model they want from the target unit so long as one is insta killed (if one is even hit dead on) at the center, and special models and ICs are still shielded if they have friends. Also, this is only for shell based ordinance, Leman Russes, Basilisks, Vindicators, Defilers, Orbital Barrages and probably vehicle based Rail Guns, Prism Cannons and maybe even Dcannons too as special cases.

Tyranid players really hate this, and I understand. I think that codex is shamefully handicapped in any configuration, but that's another issue. (I think Tyranids should be at best T4, and all come in broods and be cheaper, carnifexes as 1-3 heavy slot choices EA., that way small arms can hurt them, but I think they ought to have better shooters too...)

The template placement rules really make the ordinance worthless, it's trivial to set up a squad (probably of marines) 2 inches between them in lines and an ordinance tank probably couldn't kill them all game long. With a 1 in 3 chance of hitting and getting at best 1 and 2 partials... Might as well let the few hits (perhaps 2 in a game) really count.

(Plus I think giant cockroaches should be significantly less tough, much more numerous, and easier to kill generally.)

yakface> I see a general imbalance in 40k between the vehicle and the multi-wound creature. They have the instant death rule, but it only applies to low Toughness creatures. There needs to be a chance to kill multi-wound creatures in a single shot

Actually after Rune of Chaos, The Resurection Orb, Hive Mind, the Admanatium Mantle, the Medallion Crimson etc. it doesnt even kill low toughness multi wound creatures either.

They need to stop writing exceptions to the Universal special rules... To late.

yakface> Yes, all MCs should likely go down a tiny bit in cost if this rule was adopted, but I really think it would make the game more fair and balanced.

I concur, but global changes are the hardest. Maybe in 6 more years. Heh. Who wants to lay bets that the new Eldar codex will have a way for their HQs to avoid instant death?

Although I think that there ought to be a better way to kill MC's, I don't think any of those are reasonable answers.

I think the best thing would be to treat MC's as vehicles and instead of having a toughness they could have an 'MC-AV' and have a MC table like there is a vehicle damage table.

Of course this is 5-6 years down the line and some serious points re-vamps but I think it makes the most sense.

I don't think they need to make MCs easier to kill, they just need to make tanks (normal tanks, not skimmers) harder to kill. Consider that 50% of glances result in a tank not being able to shoot the following round, and that a glance can kill it outright.

I think there should be more incremental vehicle damage, especially on glances. ie more weapon destroyed results (maybe owner's choice on a glance though), knock movement down by half etc. No destroyed or immobilized on glances. Incremental speed losses on glancing hits would go a long way towards reducing the invulnerable-skimmer phenomenon - pour enough shots into it, and eventually it'll be moving slow enough to penetrate...

That being said, incremental damage might be a good option for MCs too - maybe at <50% wounds, an MC can only fire one weapon and/or loses one attack and/or drops BS/WS by 1? Or have one of those effects for each wound it takes. I suppose a damage table could work with that.

The problem is, that GW doesn't want to overload the table with bookeeping like you used to have to in 2nd edition to mark the damage on your vehicles. They also have said that: A) They like having vehicles work differently than creatures and B) part of that difference is they like the chance of lucky hits that blow the whole thing up.

If they didn't have that hang-up (which I personally don't agree with) I think vehicles should have stats just like creatures. For each wound they lose their top speed would drop by 'X' amount of inches, and they could fire 'X' amount of weapons equal to the number of wounds they have remaining.

Personally, I still think that is the route to go in 5th edition personally. Of course, I'd still personally include the "headshot" rule (posted above) for vehicles too, representing the chance of that lucky hit that does extra damage.

As I've said a dozen or more times. "Paying 250pts for a vehicle that dies the first time someone pulls the trigger on a lascannon is not fair. Watching an AV13 vehicle survive the 13th time you have penetrated its hull and still be a scoring unit is not fair either." Vehicles are so utterly inconsistant that they become a spectacle and take the infantry out of the equation. When my army has to rely on vehicles and they die with no effort, I get annoyed. When I watch them just walk through fire with no bother, my opponent gets annoyed.

Making Vehicles have a T stat and wounds would give them equal footing in consistancy. You could gauge their points more accurately as well. I have liked that idea since I saw it. It's why the wraithlord is so hated, it is consistant. You know how hard it is to kill. For some reason people don't really think about the fact that predators might be harder to kill, since they hope for a lucky roll, instead of bringing enough fire to consistantly knock it down, they complain about the percieved invulnerability.

might be off topic but isnt that what a force weapon for or even better a plague sword is useful at, Ive killed many fexs and bloodthristers with my mighty plague sword


my two cents

Well, then what are armies like IG supposed to do, since they lack access to such things and depend on their tanks to kill big stuff? It's all well and good to look at it from a Marine (Chaos or otherwise) POV, but there are other armies in the game.

This is very similar to somthing I have been working on:

If monstrous creature is targeted with ordnance and a HIT is rolled; roll to wound as normal. If creature takes a wound make toughness test:

Toughness test: Both roll a D6 ordnance player adds wpn STR and MC player adds Toughness. Keep re-rolling unmodded if there is a tie. If MC wins no further effect. If ORD player wins creature takes additional D3 wounds no armor saves INV saves oK.