Switch Theme:

Making vehicles feel like vehicles  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






This is more of an open idea thread than me having a specific idea for how to "fix" vehicles.

My current feeling with vehicles in 40k is that they aren't really that... vehicley. They don't give off a "bring out your big guns" kind of vibe all that much. And let's face it ,a gretchin standing in front of a landraider isn't going to be able to stop it in its tracks.

These are my current thoughts on the issues which make vehicles feel like monsters:

• They can't ram through things. I know tank shock was a horrid thing before, but I would be very happy if there could be some form of compromise with this.
• They fight in close combat. This just seems weird, however bad they are at it. If an ork is hammering the outside of your tank with an axe, your proper response should be to drive away, or ignore it and keep shooting.
• Their guns can shoot in any direction, from any point of the model. This is just weird and wrong. Monsters & infantry can twist and move around things, and aren't as their static model suggests. Vehicles can't do that.
• They are damaged in the same way as organic things. This still seems wrong to me, but I understand the way it standardizes the system.

There are some more minor ones (like fast transports not letting models get out after moving, that sort of thing) but for now lets focus on the bigger things.

I guess I want vehicles to be more cumbersome, but also more resilient. The trade off for large firepower is the risk of not being able to use it because of the tanks bulk.

Some thoughts I have for these issues would be:

• For ramming, let them move through units as if they weren't there. When they do so, they pick one unit they moved through and make a round of close combat against them. They can finish their move within 1" of an enemy, because of the next point.
• Vehicles (excepting walkers) don't fight in close combat. They can't engage or be engaged in combat, and can be attacked in the fight phase by anyone within 1" (who can pile in as if they were engaged).
• Weapon line of sight is measured from any point on the weapon, not on the model. So a baneblade's sponsons can't both fire to the left, because the body of the baneblade is in the way for the right hand weapon. Turrets can fire in all direction, but can't fire from the front bumper.
• Damage is a tricky one. I don't want to go back to armour facings and penetration rolls, but I do want vehicles to feel like they are impregnable unless hit by something meaningful. I hate it when a big tank is killed because the lascannon left 1 wound on and oh look, the bolter got through ,and because marines it's AP-2 so it wounds, so your tank dies. If the lascannon left 1 wound on, then the tank is doing its job. That shouldn't be screwed over by a boltgun. Attackers and defenders have to feel like they can win.
As such, I suggest this: Any weapons making attacks against a vehicle are treated as AP0 if their Strength is lower than the targets Toughness. Shoot a T8 tank with a missile, your AP works, but Shoot it with a plasmagun, and it gets its full save - you're not strong enough to compromise its armour.
This keeps the "anything can hurt anything" vibe, and makes T8 a serious thing for a vehicle, and T9 seriously serious. Whilst the chances for a lasgun don't get affected, the chances of those annoying weak weapons with good AP to damage a tank goes down, as they should. The AP of weak weapons is for killing infantry, with inch thick armour, not vehicles with foot thick armour.
Scaling with Toughness also keeps autocannons and such relevant for light vehicles, as they should be.

These changes would then make transports feel better, as they are supposed to be there to protect against light guns. You can drive into the enemy, possibly through them, and then weather the storm before getting out. I would also like to see vehicles allowed to move up to 6" before units disembark, then disallowing units from moving afterwards if the vehicle moved before. This would be exclusively to let vehicles move to a safer location to disembark, and in general offers very little advantage (orks, for example, would gain an entire inch! the humanity!)


So I guess my questions are:

• What do you think about vehicles - is my assessment that they feel wrong shared?
• What do you think about my solutions?
• What other issues and solutions would you suggest?

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/03/17 12:09:38


12,300 points of Orks
9th W/D/L with Orks, 4/0/2
I am Thoruk, the Barbarian, Slayer of Ducks, and This is my blog!

I'm Selling Infinity, 40k, dystopian wars, UK based! 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 some bloke wrote:

Some thoughts I have for these issues would be:

• For ramming, let them move through units as if they weren't there. When they do so, they pick one unit they moved through and make a round of close combat against them. They can finish their move within 1" of an enemy, because of the next point.
• Vehicles (excepting walkers) don't fight in close combat. They can't engage or be engaged in combat, and can be attacked in the fight phase by anyone within 1" (who can pile in as if they were engaged).

Pausing to make a round of close combat attacks seems a bit overly complicated, especially gives that most vehicles don't do much in melee anyway. And worse, you'd be giving a free round of attacks to those rare vehicles that actually can do some meaningful damage in close combat. I agree that you probably shouldn't be able to tie up a rhino with gretchin. An easier solution is probably just to let them move over infantry, beasts, and swarms in the movement phase as long as they can end more than 1" away from enemy units; similar to how knights can walk out of combat.

Not sure what you mean by "engage or be engaged in combat." Those concepts don't really exist in 9th edition. The first bullet point implies you still want them to keep WS and Attacks stats, so I assume you don't mean they're not allowed to fight in melee. Do you mean they can't be charged? (Weird if you're allowed to punch them but not charge them to punch them.) Do you mean that you ignore them for purposes of declaring shooting targets? (Weird that my opponent's devastators are ignoring the deff rolla that just killed a bunch of them so they can calmly shoot a different target across the table.)


• Weapon line of sight is measured from any point on the weapon, not on the model. So a baneblade's sponsons can't both fire to the left, because the body of the baneblade is in the way for the right hand weapon. Turrets can fire in all direction, but can't fire from the front bumper.

I know a lot of people struggle with this particular abstraction, but I just don't think bringing back weapon line of sight is worth it. If nothing else, I know there are a bunch of lovingly-crafted conversions out there that would suddenly be "modeling for advantage" if the exact placement of the weapon mattered.

I'm not sure from your example whether you're proposing bringing back firing arcs too, but the turret and sponson examples make me think you are. And if you are, that means we suddenly have to define the arcs of all those weapons, bring back the wonkiness of the "broadside" style gauss array on ghost arks and the weirdness of the tail gun on models like the void weaver. So you're talking about...
* Defining arcs for a bunch of weapons including the ones for weapons/models that didn't exist in 7th edition.
* Writing in rules exceptions explaining how some of the weirder gun setups work.
* Retroactively causing a bunch of conversions to be modeling for advantage.

And all you really get back for that extra complication is being able to say, "No, you can't fire that side sponson because your driver sucks at lining up shots." Or, "Nope, you can't shoot that bolter because you forgot that it's 1" away from your front bumper and thus out of range.

Serious question, would it maybe make more sense for you to just self-impose that kind of restriction if weapon arcs bug you so much? Or does it also bug you when your opponent's ravager can shoot all three guns at one target?


• Damage is a tricky one. I don't want to go back to armour facings and penetration rolls, but I do want vehicles to feel like they are impregnable unless hit by something meaningful. I hate it when a big tank is killed because the lascannon left 1 wound on and oh look, the bolter got through ,and because marines it's AP-2 so it wounds, so your tank dies. If the lascannon left 1 wound on, then the tank is doing its job. That shouldn't be screwed over by a boltgun. Attackers and defenders have to feel like they can win.
As such, I suggest this: Any weapons making attacks against a vehicle are treated as AP0 if their Strength is lower than the targets Toughness. Shoot a T8 tank with a missile, your AP works, but Shoot it with a plasmagun, and it gets its full save - you're not strong enough to compromise its armour.
This keeps the "anything can hurt anything" vibe, and makes T8 a serious thing for a vehicle, and T9 seriously serious. Whilst the chances for a lasgun don't get affected, the chances of those annoying weak weapons with good AP to damage a tank goes down, as they should. The AP of weak weapons is for killing infantry, with inch thick armour, not vehicles with foot thick armour.
Scaling with Toughness also keeps autocannons and such relevant for light vehicles, as they should be.

This one is interesting. I'm not sold that it's a needed change, but it's the sort of thing that could be added on and I'd shrug and be fine with it. A couple things here:
A.) I'd argue this rule doesn't solve the problem you've identified. A bolter could still take the last wound off of a tank; your opponent's save will just be slightly better (assuming you're in the tactical doctrine or using an extra special bolter of some sort).
B.) Weapons like the drukhari heat lance exist. It's basically an 18", strength 6 meltagun. It's pretty bad currently, but it gets a lot worse if you take away its main advantage (good AP) because its strength is lower than the toughness of the rhino it's trying to hurt. I'm sure there are other weapons with a similar issue.
C.) It's weird that my wraith lord or a tau broadside wouldn't gain similar resistances as written.
D.) This is another abstraction. If you hate picturing a bolt pistol dealing the death blow, then just headcanon it that the lascanon is the thing that actually blew up the enemy tank. Your shooting is supposedly all happening more or less simultaneously after all.

Also, a vehicle on its last wound is in really bad shape. Maybe your lascannon gored a hole in the armor, and that bolt pistol hit the pilot or the power generator or ignited the fuel spilling out of a damaged pipe.
   
Made in nl
Secret Inquisitorial Eldar Xenexecutor






your mind

Yes, vehicles do not fell vehicly.

Not so sure about your approach, as I am not a fan of current rules.

There were better rules for ramming etc in older editions.

   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






Wyldhunt wrote:

Pausing to make a round of close combat attacks seems a bit overly complicated, especially gives that most vehicles don't do much in melee anyway. And worse, you'd be giving a free round of attacks to those rare vehicles that actually can do some meaningful damage in close combat. I agree that you probably shouldn't be able to tie up a rhino with gretchin. An easier solution is probably just to let them move over infantry, beasts, and swarms in the movement phase as long as they can end more than 1" away from enemy units; similar to how knights can walk out of combat.

Not sure what you mean by "engage or be engaged in combat." Those concepts don't really exist in 9th edition. The first bullet point implies you still want them to keep WS and Attacks stats, so I assume you don't mean they're not allowed to fight in melee. Do you mean they can't be charged? (Weird if you're allowed to punch them but not charge them to punch them.) Do you mean that you ignore them for purposes of declaring shooting targets? (Weird that my opponent's devastators are ignoring the deff rolla that just killed a bunch of them so they can calmly shoot a different target across the table.)



Okay, the thought was that vehicles would move over infantry, beasts and swarms like knights do, but then would also perform a round of close combat in the movement phase on a single unit that they moved through. This would be the only way a vehicle can fight in close combat - they would no longer fight back in the fight phase.

They can be charged, and any units that would normally be able to fight them can do so as they do now, but the vehicle won't fight back (it did its combat by driving over things) and the vehicle doesn't have to fall back to drive away, because it's not classed as in combat. I guess the smoother way to resolve it is to let them fall back and still shoot, and if they fall back over an enemy unit, they can make CC attacks in that way. I would also let vehicles shoot out of combat, because they should just ignore grots and marines running around outside them - go punch a panzer and see if it stops it shooting something else!


I know a lot of people struggle with this particular abstraction, but I just don't think bringing back weapon line of sight is worth it. If nothing else, I know there are a bunch of lovingly-crafted conversions out there that would suddenly be "modeling for advantage" if the exact placement of the weapon mattered.

I'm not sure from your example whether you're proposing bringing back firing arcs too, but the turret and sponson examples make me think you are. And if you are, that means we suddenly have to define the arcs of all those weapons, bring back the wonkiness of the "broadside" style gauss array on ghost arks and the weirdness of the tail gun on models like the void weaver. So you're talking about...
* Defining arcs for a bunch of weapons including the ones for weapons/models that didn't exist in 7th edition.
* Writing in rules exceptions explaining how some of the weirder gun setups work.
* Retroactively causing a bunch of conversions to be modeling for advantage.

And all you really get back for that extra complication is being able to say, "No, you can't fire that side sponson because your driver sucks at lining up shots." Or, "Nope, you can't shoot that bolter because you forgot that it's 1" away from your front bumper and thus out of range.

Serious question, would it maybe make more sense for you to just self-impose that kind of restriction if weapon arcs bug you so much? Or does it also bug you when your opponent's ravager can shoot all three guns at one target?


I think the main thing I dislike is that a tank can poke its front bumper around a corner and then fire every gun at its disposal into the enemy from that bumper. My changes are all to improve vehicles, but I also want them to feel different - a tank can't crouch down for a better shot, a dreadnaught or a carnifex can.

I definitely wouldn't be looking to impose strict firing arcs, I would simply have the weapons have their own line of sight. I'm not sure how else to address the issue - ruling that the target must be able to see 50% of the vehicle, perhaps? I don't want it to be overly complex, but I also don't want bumper-mounted battlecannons!



This one is interesting. I'm not sold that it's a needed change, but it's the sort of thing that could be added on and I'd shrug and be fine with it. A couple things here:
A.) I'd argue this rule doesn't solve the problem you've identified. A bolter could still take the last wound off of a tank; your opponent's save will just be slightly better (assuming you're in the tactical doctrine or using an extra special bolter of some sort).
B.) Weapons like the drukhari heat lance exist. It's basically an 18", strength 6 meltagun. It's pretty bad currently, but it gets a lot worse if you take away its main advantage (good AP) because its strength is lower than the toughness of the rhino it's trying to hurt. I'm sure there are other weapons with a similar issue.
C.) It's weird that my wraith lord or a tau broadside wouldn't gain similar resistances as written.
D.) This is another abstraction. If you hate picturing a bolt pistol dealing the death blow, then just headcanon it that the lascanon is the thing that actually blew up the enemy tank. Your shooting is supposedly all happening more or less simultaneously after all.

Also, a vehicle on its last wound is in really bad shape. Maybe your lascannon gored a hole in the armor, and that bolt pistol hit the pilot or the power generator or ignited the fuel spilling out of a damaged pipe.


I agree that a bolter could kill the tank, but I've found that marines with AP-2 bolters (from various trickery combined) causes serious issues for my tanks. A unit of marines with all the rerolls and stuff generally causes several wounds, and then with AP-2 I'm on 5+ saves at best, and that often knocks me down a damage band or even kills the tank. Getting rid of the AP for weak guns against tanks would really go some to make them feel like tanks.

For the Heat Lance, that would become predominantly used against light vehicles, or would warrant an upgrade to S7 to tackle medium vehicles too. Alternatively, "Melta" rules can negate the AP mitigation, which would be a cool addition.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/03/18 09:01:52


12,300 points of Orks
9th W/D/L with Orks, 4/0/2
I am Thoruk, the Barbarian, Slayer of Ducks, and This is my blog!

I'm Selling Infinity, 40k, dystopian wars, UK based! 
   
Made in us
Roarin' Runtherd




I honestly preferred the old split between tanks and monsters in prior editions, it was just GW has seriously inept rules writers who cannot adjust for balance. Honestly I'd split the them into two subgroups each, true biological monsters like Tyranids and the constructs of things like Eldar Wraiths, or admech Robots. On the other hand, vehicles should be walkers and normal vehicles. Large Battlesuits should be folded into walkers. The Key dividing line being, are they crewed or is it a single large entity.

Vehicles should be the least interactive in terms of melee. Its tank, its gonna try and run you over. They should have better shooting to compensate. Ignoring modifiers for shooting and in general just working this into the stat lines of the vehicles themselves. If you're getting into a shooting fight bringing a Tank should be your best best. Walkers should be very similar to how they are now, the melee variation on tanks. They should be outshot by tanks, a Leman Russ or Predator should easily outshoot a dreadnought for instance and not cost a stupid amount more. If that Dreadnought however gets into charge range however, it should end with the Dread ripping them apart.

Monsters and constructs should follow similar rules to each other, with the exception that constructs should be immune to normal poison weapons, that Kastelan should not care one bit about being shot by a needle loaded with something akin to cyanide or the venom of a blue ring octopus. It should however be incredibly concerned about a haywire gun striking it. Simply ensure that haywire weapons get written into effecting constructs. Including them in the mortal wounds rules for them would be a good work around for it.

Give vehicles defined fire arcs. Turret weapons can shoot in any direction. Sponson weapons can fire forward and to the side they're mounted on. If my Vindicator has a fixed forward cannon I should not be able to fire to my rear with it. Then return armor values or at least give individual sides their own T value, they made sense, and could even diminish as the tank takes damage. If that Baneblade somehow survives being hit by the Volcano Lance of a Knight, it should have a gapping whole in its armor for infantry to fire into, or toss grenades into. It would make sense for a Baneblade for instance to have T10 on the front, 8 on the side and T7 on the rear. Most imperial and ork vehicles are boxy enough for facings to be determined. For Tau and Eldar vehicles which can be tricky, the difference could be either ignored back giving them the same value, or by simply adding a short online guide to this showing facings. It isn't that hard, just a set of pictures for the main hulls and the go from there if someone wants to be needless pedantic.

Getting into how the individual sponsons fire arcs is probably unneeded extra details, so treating all sponsons similarly is probably the best way forward. while it makes less sense in some weird edge cases like Malcadors, I'd be willing to forgo it in favor of smoother rules.

The older wound chart was IMO better too. While yes Ork boyz hacking at a Knight's ankles are unlikely to do anything and the vast majority of the time my powerklaws and killsaws kill it, having them being able to damage an uncompromised Knight's armor is kinda silly.

having Toughness as a degrading stat would make sense. But counter balance that with, until you've starting punching holes in its armor with larger weapons, no your bolters super special AP rounds just don't have enough punch to work seems like a good solution.

I'd reintroduce Ordinance as a weapon type to represent things in between the massive Macro weapons found on titans and heavy weapons which can be infantry portable. I'm not certain how to meaningfully make them separate from "heavy" weapons but am open to suggestions.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/03/18 15:37:08


 
   
Made in gb
Wrathful Warlord Titan Commander






London

Now I'm on the fence with fire arcs. I agree that it's more thematic to the operation of the vehicle and is better now that units aren't forced to shoot everything at a single enemy, but overall it may cause issues with determining LoS.

I certainly agree that vehicles need some changes to feel more vehicle-y, these are some ideas I've been throwing around.

1. Make vehicle close combat actually worth something. A 30-ton tank speeding into a couple of guardsmen should have more impact than 3 attacks hitting on 6's which allow armour saves.

A generic vehicle CCW which all vehicles have access to would be helpful: S: User, Ap-1 D1, +1 to hit against Vehicles and Infantry.

2. I would give +1BS to all non-Astartes Super-Heavies, although some may be excluded. Doesn't make sense that a Baneblade with all its targeters, auspexes, etc, hits no better than a standard Guardsman.

3. Destroyed vehicles should be left on the battlefield unless they explode, in which they're replaced by a crater instead. Ruins the theme a bit when they just disappear, and adds a bit of tactics if the wreckage blocks LoS or chokepoints.


   
Made in us
Roarin' Runtherd




 Valkyrie wrote:
Now I'm on the fence with fire arcs. I agree that it's more thematic to the operation of the vehicle and is better now that units aren't forced to shoot everything at a single enemy, but overall it may cause issues with determining LoS.

I certainly agree that vehicles need some changes to feel more vehicle-y, these are some ideas I've been throwing around.

1. Make vehicle close combat actually worth something. A 30-ton tank speeding into a couple of guardsmen should have more impact than 3 attacks hitting on 6's which allow armour saves.

A generic vehicle CCW which all vehicles have access to would be helpful: S: User, Ap-1 D1, +1 to hit against Vehicles and Infantry.

2. I would give +1BS to all non-Astartes Super-Heavies, although some may be excluded. Doesn't make sense that a Baneblade with all its targeters, auspexes, etc, hits no better than a standard Guardsman.

3. Destroyed vehicles should be left on the battlefield unless they explode, in which they're replaced by a crater instead. Ruins the theme a bit when they just disappear, and adds a bit of tactics if the wreckage blocks LoS or chokepoints.




All of these sound good. Honestly LOS is rather easy to determine is lasers if it becomes an issue for people, which was a big reason for why I got one, plus for use in the period when I played X-Wing regularly.
   
Made in ca
Secretive Dark Angels Veteran




Vancouver, BC

Wyldhunt wrote:
Pausing to make a round of close combat attacks seems a bit overly complicated, especially gives that most vehicles don't do much in melee anyway. And worse, you'd be giving a free round of attacks to those rare vehicles that actually can do some meaningful damage in close combat. I agree that you probably shouldn't be able to tie up a rhino with gretchin. An easier solution is probably just to let them move over infantry, beasts, and swarms in the movement phase as long as they can end more than 1" away from enemy units; similar to how knights can walk out of combat.

You could do this but with mortal wounds. The smallest vehicles might only do one, mid-sized vehicles do d3, and the heavier vehicles do 3+d3. Then just make it so vehicles can't be engaged in CC and you've added some vehicle-like behavior for very little rules overhead.

I know a lot of people struggle with this particular abstraction, but I just don't think bringing back weapon line of sight is worth it. If nothing else, I know there are a bunch of lovingly-crafted conversions out there that would suddenly be "modeling for advantage" if the exact placement of the weapon mattered.

I'm not sure a rules discussion should account for a vanishingly small number of conversions. It sucks if you're suddenly viewed as TFG for bringing a conversion, but that happens whenever a unit gets a buff anyway so we should all be used to it by now.

I'm not sure from your example whether you're proposing bringing back firing arcs too, but the turret and sponson examples make me think you are. And if you are, that means we suddenly have to define the arcs of all those weapons, bring back the wonkiness of the "broadside" style gauss array on ghost arks and the weirdness of the tail gun on models like the void weaver. So you're talking about...

Is the tail gun on a Void Weaver really any worse than the HB on a Basilisk is currently?

Even if it is a problem, just don't charge full points for any such weapons and then the issue is solved.

* Defining arcs for a bunch of weapons including the ones for weapons/models that didn't exist in 7th edition.
* Writing in rules exceptions explaining how some of the weirder gun setups work.
* Retroactively causing a bunch of conversions to be modeling for advantage.

No need for this just use simple LOS, if the gun can see it can shoot, if it can't too bad try again next turn.
   
Made in us
Roarin' Runtherd




LOS is a very simple issue, use the model, I convert the hell out several kits of mine. I created a Gun Wagon out of a german VK-4502 Ausf B and its about the right size, a little longer and wider than a battle wagon but its suitable. If you're gonna convert, approximate the firing positions on the model you're converting. For instance the above mentioned VK has a co-axial big shoota and one hull mounted forward, similarly a normal gunwagon would have on pintle mounted atop the gun turret and one in its own mini turret. According to my own rules, I'd only be able to the hull one forward and the turret one against things the main gun is pointed at, or at least freely. Thats acceptable to me. I just wish big shootas were stronger.

On the other hand it honestly lacks sufficient firepower without Da Boomer which honestly should be its default profile. It is an inferior Leman Russ with Battle Cannon, save for its consistent damage 2 over d3 damage. Again it is Da Boomer which actually makes it outdamage the main gun of a Russ but only one gun wagon can have a gun of the caliber.

Now that is not the only concern. Another is, well infantry often outgun tanks. More accurately infantry squads do. Compare Eradicators (which alongside attack bikes with multimeltas need a nerf) to the firepower of a Leman Russ Vanquisher which is a dedicated tank destroyer. Infantry that get close to tanks should kill them, particularly with AT weapons but they shouldn't outshoot them at longer ranges. Tanks as a whole need some serious firepower and durability upgrades across the board.


NOTE: I believe serious buffs are headed that tank's way from the way Forgeworld updated the Macharius Vanquisher's main guns to be STR 16, AP-4 and D9.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






 Canadian 5th wrote:
Wyldhunt wrote:
Pausing to make a round of close combat attacks seems a bit overly complicated, especially gives that most vehicles don't do much in melee anyway. And worse, you'd be giving a free round of attacks to those rare vehicles that actually can do some meaningful damage in close combat. I agree that you probably shouldn't be able to tie up a rhino with gretchin. An easier solution is probably just to let them move over infantry, beasts, and swarms in the movement phase as long as they can end more than 1" away from enemy units; similar to how knights can walk out of combat.


You could do this but with mortal wounds. The smallest vehicles might only do one, mid-sized vehicles do d3, and the heavier vehicles do 3+d3. Then just make it so vehicles can't be engaged in CC and you've added some vehicle-like behavior for very little rules overhead.


I don't like the idea of mortal wounds for this. Mortal wounds are too inflexible. We would be going from "why can a grot stop a vehicle from moving?" to "why should a grot be as likely to die from being run over as a chaos space marine?". We can perhaps have vehicles deal a number of hits instead of rolling to hit, but I don't think that it would really need any extra time for a vehicle to attack in the movement phase instead of in the fight phase. Plus, one guy with 1 wound getting run over by a buggy vs 1 guy getting run over by a baneblade, in your case they are both just as deadly. I like the idea of armoured enemies standing back up with a tyre track running up their armour!



I know a lot of people struggle with this particular abstraction, but I just don't think bringing back weapon line of sight is worth it. If nothing else, I know there are a bunch of lovingly-crafted conversions out there that would suddenly be "modeling for advantage" if the exact placement of the weapon mattered.

I'm not sure a rules discussion should account for a vanishingly small number of conversions. It sucks if you're suddenly viewed as TFG for bringing a conversion, but that happens whenever a unit gets a buff anyway so we should all be used to it by now.

I'm not sure from your example whether you're proposing bringing back firing arcs too, but the turret and sponson examples make me think you are. And if you are, that means we suddenly have to define the arcs of all those weapons, bring back the wonkiness of the "broadside" style gauss array on ghost arks and the weirdness of the tail gun on models like the void weaver. So you're talking about...

Is the tail gun on a Void Weaver really any worse than the HB on a Basilisk is currently?

Even if it is a problem, just don't charge full points for any such weapons and then the issue is solved.

* Defining arcs for a bunch of weapons including the ones for weapons/models that didn't exist in 7th edition.
* Writing in rules exceptions explaining how some of the weirder gun setups work.
* Retroactively causing a bunch of conversions to be modeling for advantage.

No need for this just use simple LOS, if the gun can see it can shoot, if it can't too bad try again next turn.


This is exactly what I was thinking. Not "can the weapon point to the enemy" but using a balance of the current pure-abstract and the old common-sense. If you can draw LOS fro mthe weapon to the target, then it can pick that target, regardless of what angle it's doing so with.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/03/19 08:39:01


12,300 points of Orks
9th W/D/L with Orks, 4/0/2
I am Thoruk, the Barbarian, Slayer of Ducks, and This is my blog!

I'm Selling Infinity, 40k, dystopian wars, UK based! 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Valkyrie wrote:

1. Make vehicle close combat actually worth something. A 30-ton tank speeding into a couple of guardsmen should have more impact than 3 attacks hitting on 6's which allow armour saves.

A generic vehicle CCW which all vehicles have access to would be helpful: S: User, Ap-1 D1, +1 to hit against Vehicles and Infantry.

A generic vehicle ccw could be a good way to go. Maybe something that gets more lethal on turns that the vehicle charged. Or more lethal if it advanced in its previous turn (though that adds some bookkeeping.) Between an okay melee weapon and the ability to move over enemy units when falling back, I think you'd be modeling a vehicle's ability to slam into enemy lines and move through melee pretty well without adding a lot of complexity.

Although, increasing the melee (or movement phase) offense of vehicles means we have to ask how many extra points a given vehicle should pay for those benefits. Do all vehicles in the game need to pay for a melee weapon that they might not want to use?


2. I would give +1BS to all non-Astartes Super-Heavies, although some may be excluded. Doesn't make sense that a Baneblade with all its targeters, auspexes, etc, hits no better than a standard Guardsman.

Eh... Piloting an imperial knight via a usb cable jammed into the base of your neck is a pretty weird and unrelatable experience. I think we can comfortably assume that BS3+ (and ignoring to-hit penalties with heavy weapons) is the end result of the pilot's training and the knight's various targeting systems. Similarly, shooting a superheavy tank seems like it's a whole... operation. BS3+ shadowswords wouldn't be the end of the world, but again, it's probably fair to assume that all those targeting systems contribute towards getting the BS to the point it is now.


3. Destroyed vehicles should be left on the battlefield unless they explode, in which they're replaced by a crater instead. Ruins the theme a bit when they just disappear, and adds a bit of tactics if the wreckage blocks LoS or chokepoints.

I'd be all for bringing this back into the game. Provided you define how big the crater needs to be and you're okay with my heavy, pewter models standing on your vehicle's nice paint job.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Canadian 5th wrote:
Wyldhunt wrote:
Pausing to make a round of close combat attacks seems a bit overly complicated, especially gives that most vehicles don't do much in melee anyway. And worse, you'd be giving a free round of attacks to those rare vehicles that actually can do some meaningful damage in close combat. I agree that you probably shouldn't be able to tie up a rhino with gretchin. An easier solution is probably just to let them move over infantry, beasts, and swarms in the movement phase as long as they can end more than 1" away from enemy units; similar to how knights can walk out of combat.

You could do this but with mortal wounds. The smallest vehicles might only do one, mid-sized vehicles do d3, and the heavier vehicles do 3+d3. Then just make it so vehicles can't be engaged in CC and you've added some vehicle-like behavior for very little rules overhead.

I could see something like that working. Although drukhari venom spam that can also dogpile a target to inflict mortal wounds might be abusable. Is it reasonable to assume that a landspeeder or ork buggy slamming into a terminator will definitely inflict at least one mortal wound's worth of damage? Probably. Maybe have "ramming" inflict some number of mortal wounds on the rammer? So slamming a rhino into the enemy line because a viscerally satisfying way to reliably do some damage, but you're reducing the chances that the rhino will be alive at the end of the game.


I know a lot of people struggle with this particular abstraction, but I just don't think bringing back weapon line of sight is worth it. If nothing else, I know there are a bunch of lovingly-crafted conversions out there that would suddenly be "modeling for advantage" if the exact placement of the weapon mattered.

I'm not sure a rules discussion should account for a vanishingly small number of conversions. It sucks if you're suddenly viewed as TFG for bringing a conversion, but that happens whenever a unit gets a buff anyway so we should all be used to it by now.

This is anecdotal, but my local gaming group has a fair few conversions, especially among the ork players. And the various 40k facebook groups I'm part of frequently have people showing off their kitbashed and converted models. Even just simple things like putting the splinter cannons on the wings of your venoms instead of under the nose and above the cockpit.

It's probably not a huge consideration, but it is worth being aware that the proposed rules could create problems for existing converted models or discourage people from pursuing certain hobby projects if said projects would run into such issues.


I'm not sure from your example whether you're proposing bringing back firing arcs too, but the turret and sponson examples make me think you are. And if you are, that means we suddenly have to define the arcs of all those weapons, bring back the wonkiness of the "broadside" style gauss array on ghost arks and the weirdness of the tail gun on models like the void weaver. So you're talking about...

Is the tail gun on a Void Weaver really any worse than the HB on a Basilisk is currently?

Even if it is a problem, just don't charge full points for any such weapons and then the issue is solved.

My fledgeling guard army doesn't have any artillery yet, so I can't really comment on the Basilisk's heavy bolter. My main point is that we should be aware of the extra complications we're creating and nerfs we're inflicting when considering proposed rules. But it sounds like Bloke just wants to reintroduce line of sight rather than actual firing arcs, so I guess the voidweaver's tail gun could technically shoot forward? You'd just have to draw line of sight from the flare of the tail gun's barrel, past the gunner's waste, and into the target standing behind him...

Which actually feels weirder to me than shooting from the peekaboo bumper. Currently, the rules for shooting vehicles are abstract enough that I can imagine my voidweaver is flying this way and that, giving the tailgunner an opening in which to shoot at a target ahead of the vehicle's general trajectory. But if I, let's say, place my voidweaver such that the tailgun can't see my target due to a wall, it implies that my weaver is actually more or less holding still in the location it's firing from. It moved forward, then hit the brakes and held still preventing one of its gunners from firing.

For me personally, I think that the problems with converted models, sponsons, and wonky abstraction make true line of sight on vehicle weapons not worth it to me. Getting rid of the peekaboo bumper just isn't worth the tradeoff. But I see how reasonable people could disagree.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/03/19 21:27:03


 
   
Made in gb
Wrathful Warlord Titan Commander






London

Wyldhunt wrote:
 Valkyrie wrote:

1. Make vehicle close combat actually worth something. A 30-ton tank speeding into a couple of guardsmen should have more impact than 3 attacks hitting on 6's which allow armour saves.

A generic vehicle CCW which all vehicles have access to would be helpful: S: User, Ap-1 D1, +1 to hit against Vehicles and Infantry.

A generic vehicle ccw could be a good way to go. Maybe something that gets more lethal on turns that the vehicle charged. Or more lethal if it advanced in its previous turn (though that adds some bookkeeping.) Between an okay melee weapon and the ability to move over enemy units when falling back, I think you'd be modeling a vehicle's ability to slam into enemy lines and move through melee pretty well without adding a lot of complexity.

Although, increasing the melee (or movement phase) offense of vehicles means we have to ask how many extra points a given vehicle should pay for those benefits. Do all vehicles in the game need to pay for a melee weapon that they might not want to use?



I'll be honest, I wouldn't bother adding any points to vehicles if they had it. The majority of vehicles are still rather mediocre in CC, this weapon won't really tip the balance in any vehicles I can think of.

   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran






Can't add much to the discussion in terms of any proposal for rules, but I liked the way vehicles were in 2nd edition (or how I remember it) - they had a series of areas (represented on a diagram iirc) that could be hit and take damage (although I fail to recall what the result of that damage was, I think there was a table you rolled on once an area was damaged), and iirc they could run over troops and just move off away from close combat. And they had fire arcs, which makes more sense than what we have currently.

Personally I don't think the close combat round for vehicles should be anything but troops outside attacking a vehicle if they have sufficient means to do damage, i.e. melta bombs etc., or a vehicle mowing troops down (if they're in front or behind the vehicle), or maybe at a stretch countermeasures such as frag launchers.

I know the current rules are dumbed down to streamline games though, so I doubt GW will revert to a more vehicle like set of rules for vehicles - the tournament crowd wouldn't like it.

This message was edited 12 times. Last update was at 2021/03/20 00:47:44


 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






 Valkyrie wrote:
Wyldhunt wrote:
 Valkyrie wrote:

1. Make vehicle close combat actually worth something. A 30-ton tank speeding into a couple of guardsmen should have more impact than 3 attacks hitting on 6's which allow armour saves.

A generic vehicle CCW which all vehicles have access to would be helpful: S: User, Ap-1 D1, +1 to hit against Vehicles and Infantry.

A generic vehicle ccw could be a good way to go. Maybe something that gets more lethal on turns that the vehicle charged. Or more lethal if it advanced in its previous turn (though that adds some bookkeeping.) Between an okay melee weapon and the ability to move over enemy units when falling back, I think you'd be modeling a vehicle's ability to slam into enemy lines and move through melee pretty well without adding a lot of complexity.

Although, increasing the melee (or movement phase) offense of vehicles means we have to ask how many extra points a given vehicle should pay for those benefits. Do all vehicles in the game need to pay for a melee weapon that they might not want to use?



I'll be honest, I wouldn't bother adding any points to vehicles if they had it. The majority of vehicles are still rather mediocre in CC, this weapon won't really tip the balance in any vehicles I can think of.


I agree - even if you increase their chance to hit (which I would, you're being run over after all), if you had moving over a unit = CC fight, chances are the vehicle will have to advance to make it over them., nerfing their shooting unless they have a special rule (oh, I miss fast).

if we wend with ramming = CC and take away charges, vehicles could easily have a boost to advance (either flat 6, or 2D6).

12,300 points of Orks
9th W/D/L with Orks, 4/0/2
I am Thoruk, the Barbarian, Slayer of Ducks, and This is my blog!

I'm Selling Infinity, 40k, dystopian wars, UK based! 
   
Made in ca
Secretive Dark Angels Veteran




Vancouver, BC

Wyldhunt wrote:
I could see something like that working. Although drukhari venom spam that can also dogpile a target to inflict mortal wounds might be abusable.

I don't see how it's more abusable than what a 20 man unit of Hellions with the right strat can do. Plus a Venom is 85 points now, add in a unit able to take it as a transport, and how spamable are they?

Is it reasonable to assume that a landspeeder or ork buggy slamming into a terminator will definitely inflict at least one mortal wound's worth of damage? Probably. Maybe have "ramming" inflict some number of mortal wounds on the rammer? So slamming a rhino into the enemy line because a viscerally satisfying way to reliably do some damage, but you're reducing the chances that the rhino will be alive at the end of the game.

You could make a generic strat for a single CP that does something like, "When making a drive through attack against this unit a vehicle must roll a 4+. If they succeed they deal double their usual number of mortal wounds to this unit, if they fail they take that many mortal wounds instead." This could represent a unit setting themselves to take the charge and the risks of such a standoff.

This is anecdotal, but my local gaming group has a fair few conversions, especially among the ork players. And the various 40k facebook groups I'm part of frequently have people showing off their kitbashed and converted models. Even just simple things like putting the splinter cannons on the wings of your venoms instead of under the nose and above the cockpit.

If your group has that many conversions just roll with them and grandfather them into your games while accepting that new conversions are once again a little less flexible in terms of weapons placement.

My fledgeling guard army doesn't have any artillery yet, so I can't really comment on the Basilisk's heavy bolter. My main point is that we should be aware of the extra complications we're creating and nerfs we're inflicting when considering proposed rules. But it sounds like Bloke just wants to reintroduce line of sight rather than actual firing arcs, so I guess the voidweaver's tail gun could technically shoot forward? You'd just have to draw line of sight from the flare of the tail gun's barrel, past the gunner's waste, and into the target standing behind him...

Which actually feels weirder to me than shooting from the peekaboo bumper. Currently, the rules for shooting vehicles are abstract enough that I can imagine my voidweaver is flying this way and that, giving the tailgunner an opening in which to shoot at a target ahead of the vehicle's general trajectory. But if I, let's say, place my voidweaver such that the tailgun can't see my target due to a wall, it implies that my weaver is actually more or less holding still in the location it's firing from. It moved forward, then hit the brakes and held still preventing one of its gunners from firing.

For me personally, I think that the problems with converted models, sponsons, and wonky abstraction make true line of sight on vehicle weapons not worth it to me. Getting rid of the peekaboo bumper just isn't worth the tradeoff. But I see how reasonable people could disagree.

I would solve the LoS wonkiness by wording rules for targeting with vehicle weapons something like, "At the start of a vehicle's activation in the shooting phase any turrets or movable weapons may be rotated or positioned as the controlling player wishes. To determine what these weapons may fire at, draw a line parallel to the centerline of each weapon, and if it passes over a unit within range that unit is eligible to be fired upon by that weapon."

It's a bit wordy but it fixes weapon firing arc issues and is pretty easy to determine quickly even for vehicles with multiple weapons as many of them won't even need to be measured.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




All good points, Canadian. I'm still not sold, but I wouldn't complain if something like that were to be implemented.
   
Made in gb
Tough-as-Nails Ork Boy



UK

 Rob Lee wrote:
but I liked the way vehicles were in 2nd edition (or how I remember it) - they had a series of areas (represented on a diagram iirc) that could be hit and take damage (although I fail to recall what the result of that damage was, I think there was a table you rolled on once an area was damaged)


Yeah, you roll and consult a small chart on the data sheet, normally ranging from reduced operation such as reduced speed to full blown catastrophic explosions of the magazine.

If you mention second edition 40k I will find you, and I will bore you to tears talking about how "things were better in my day, let me tell ya..." Might even do it if you mention 4th/5th/6th WHFB 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut





Mckinleyville, CA

I feel certain vehicle weapons shouldn't be able to shoot at flyers. The side-sponson meltas of a Russ can't magically point straight up at a burna bomber. Even the battle Canon can only arc its lane of fire so high but its not built to shoot straight into the sky either.

Fast vehicles should be near impossible to hit via melee weapons & should be harder to shoot at with firearms unless the vehicle moved slowly or drove over difficult terrain.

Slow but large vehicles should be able to run over chaff or at least 10 out of 30 Boyz before it starts losing traction if not altogether the whole mob if its say a Baneblade.

Since we're not really talking about walkers I could see hovering vehicles not getting the same bonuses as tracked or wheeled vehicles running things over unless they want to crash & burn which then so be it and let them because you might as well kamikaze that grav-tank on its last wound anyways.

I agree with the OP for changing the stats a bit when it comes to armor value since tanks have generally more thickness to its armor than that wielded even by space marines. Terminator armor gets a pass simply that its purpose is to provide tank level armor to infantry but an Ork Battlewagon should FEEL indomitable compared to how squishy they are now.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





First let me say I agree, second I just don't see most of those being put in place. Especially not shooting from the weapons placement and having it restrict firing targets. If they go back to that a lot of vehicles will have awful firing arcs once more. Which I doubt GW wants to deal with.
   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut




I don't find firing arcs the most egregious change to Vehicles - for me, it's more in the ways they move and "fight" and suffer damage, which are all identical to Monsters. The result makes a Carnifex just feel like a Leman Russ with claws, and vice versa, while killing or maneuvering a Vehicle/Monster used to have qualitative, fundamental differences. I do miss facing being important, for the sensation of sneaking up behind a tank to shove a meltagun up its exhaust pipe, or positioning your Land Raider just right to tank all the fire - but firing arcs? Not hugely. They were mainly important to force risks on what way your vehicle was left facing at the end of the Shooting phase.

That said, I also think firing arcs are the easiest element of old Vehicles to revive in spirit, if you wanted to. Something like this:

Turret and Pintle weapons
Many VEHICLES employ powerful turret weapons with a fixed line of fire, or are armed with smaller, flexible pintle-mounted guns. A VEHICLE's datasheet will specify which of its weapons are turret or pintle weapons (if any). If you replace a VEHICLE's turret or pintle weapons, the new weapons are also turret or pintle weapons. When you select a target for a VEHICLE to shoot, all its weapons must shoot the same target as its turret weapon(s), or a different target within the same table quarter. Pintle weapons ignore this restriction; you can distribute their shots normally.

Then, for example, a Chaos Predator would just say:
A Chaos Predator is a single model. It is equipped with a Predator autocannon, which is its turret weapon.
  • This model may replace its Predator autocannon with a twin lascannon.
  • This model may take either two heavy bolters or two lascannons.
  • This model may take a havoc launcher and/or one item from the Combi-weapons list as pintle weapons.

  • There, done. Now the Predator has to "face" toward one particular table quarter each time it shoots, and it can't split fire in every direction unless it's using its swivel-bolter up top.

    This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2021/04/08 17:43:06


     
       
    Made in gb
    Longtime Dakkanaut






    The table quarters thing kinda works, but falls down when you remember that the predator is in a table quarter, so it can shoot in all directions at things in the same quarter.

    I kind of feel like you could break it down simply to:

    Turret & pintle - can shoot anywhere
    Coaxial - has to shoot the same thing, EG "supa kannon with coaxial giga-shoota", both of which must target the same thing.
    Hull Mounted (front, rear, left, right) - Draw a line along the side of the vehicle which it is mounted to, and anything on the other side of that line to the vehicle is a valid target.

    So a predator would have hull mounted (left) and hull mounted (right) heavy bolters, and a turret-mounted predator autocannon and a pintle mounted havoc launcher. They can all shoot different things, but you can't shoot both sponsons sideways at the same target!

    I feel like there are very few vehicles which this would make things difficult with. Ghost arcs would be hull mounted (left/right) for their arc arrays, so draw parallel lines up each side and that gives you your targeting window. Most things with awkward sides for doing this wouldn't actually have to!

    12,300 points of Orks
    9th W/D/L with Orks, 4/0/2
    I am Thoruk, the Barbarian, Slayer of Ducks, and This is my blog!

    I'm Selling Infinity, 40k, dystopian wars, UK based! 
       
    Made in us
    Longtime Dakkanaut




     some bloke wrote:

    Turret & pintle - can shoot anywhere
    Coaxial - has to shoot the same thing, EG "supa kannon with coaxial giga-shoota", both of which must target the same thing.
    Hull Mounted (front, rear, left, right) - Draw a line along the side of the vehicle which it is mounted to, and anything on the other side of that line to the vehicle is a valid target.


    This wouldn't be the worst way to handle things, but I still question how much value you get for the added complexity (and weird rules interactions with conversions, weirdly-shaped vehicles, etc.)

    Turret & pintle is basically just all weapons in 9th edition rules. Easy. SImple. Coaxial isn't complicated, but does it really change the game? It's pretty rare that I find myself doing much split firing with vehicle-mounted weapons. If something is worth shooting at, it's usually worth shooting at with both weapons of a given type. The exception would be those situations where my opponent has multiple bloodied units that I feel confident I can finish off (or put over a key damage threshold) with split fire. Finishing off two different squads of marines with one or two surviving members using my disintegrator ravagers.

    But even if you do find yourself in a situation where you want to splitfire your coaxial weapons, does doing so meaningfully slow down the game?

    Hull mounted has the most potential to cause arguments, but those would probably be pretty rare. Without introducing some sort of movement penalty, I feel like most vehicles with hull mounted weapons can just move in such a way as to point as many guns at their target as they want.

    So at that point, you've introduced new weapon keywords that have to be remembered along with their effects. You'd probably need to rewrite a handful of weapons (gauss flayer arrays) that have been reworked since weapon facings were removed. And the payoff for that (modest) added complication would be:
    * Not splitfiring weapons that you probably didn't want to split fire anyway (but whose splitfiring probably wasn't hurting the game.)
    * Having to be a little more careful with how you rotate a vehicle so that you can shoot all its guns at your intended target.
    * Minorly nerfing those vehicles that actually do have restritive hull mounted weapon placement or who do really want to splitfire coaxial weapons for some reason.

    Is the added (minor) complication worth those gains?
       
    Made in gb
    Regular Dakkanaut




     some bloke wrote:
    The table quarters thing kinda works, but falls down when you remember that the predator is in a table quarter, so it can shoot in all directions at things in the same quarter.
    True. Okay, here's an alternative which should work pretty well, and could even be adapted for non-VEHICLE units if not for the book-keeping:

    Moving Vehicles
    When you set up a VEHICLE unit on the battlefield or select it to move in your Movement phase, select a board edge or a board quarter. Until the start of your next Movement phase, that board edge (or the sections of board edge inside that board quarter) is considered the unit's Facing Edge. You may wish to place a token by that board edge as a reminder. If a VEHICLE Remains Stationary in your Movement phase, select its Facing Edge at the end of the Movement phase regardless. The following rules apply to VEHICLE units with a Facing Edge:
  • Forward Momentum: A unit cannot end any move (e.g. Normal Move, Advance, Fall Back, charge move, etc) further away from its Facing Edge than it started.
  • Forward Guns: When you select a unit to shoot, it cannot target a unit unless you can draw an imaginary straight line, 1mm wide, between its base and its Facing Edge that passes over any model in the target unit.
  • Forward Armour: When you select a unit as the target of an attack, draw an imaginary straight line, 1mm wide, between the attacking model's base and the target's Facing Edge. If the line does not pass over the target, the attacking model is said to be attacking its Forward Armour.

  • Pintle-mounted Weapons
    Some VEHICLES are armed with flexible pintle-mounted weapons. Pintle-mounted weapons are noted in the unit's datasheet, and ignore the Forward Guns rule.

    Examples of Forward Armour Rule
  • Breach Plating: Add 1 to saving throws for this model against attacks that hit its Forward Armour.
  • Armoured Cockpit: Subtract 1 from the Damage characteristic of attacks that hits this model's Forward Armour (to a minimum of 1).
  • Shimmershield: Subtract 1 from rolls to wound this model for attacks that hit its Forward Armour, and it has a 5+ invulnerable save against such attacks.
  • Heavy Armour: Halve the Strength of attacks that hit this model's Forward Armour.

  • Or just have a generic +save or -wound benefit, akin to cover.

    The main problem with this system is that it restricts the directions you can "face" to eight cardinal directions, which is a bit annoying, and facing changes in "value" depending on the proportions of the board you're playing on. No real way around that, unless you want to get even deeper with tokens. I suppose you could make it more specific by changing "board edge" to half a board edge (i.e. a board edge within a specific quarter of the battlefield). That'd look a lot neater, it's just less simple to adjudicate and phrase.

    This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/04/13 22:18:37


     
       
    Made in us
    Monster-Slaying Daemonhunter




    (Cries in Baneblade)

    Seriously though. To make vehicles more like Vehicles, bring back AV tables. Done. No more plinking wounds off my Knight with your S3 autogun.
       
    Made in au
    Regular Dakkanaut




    The only thing that I dislike about vehicles is how durable they are. Most traditional Imperial vehicles aren't that tough for their points.

    Something like:
    - Rhinos, Razorbacks, Predators, Vindicators, Stalkers, Hunters, Whirlwinds, and Landraiders should all get the old Self Repair ability the Rhino use to have. I would simplify that rule to read: "If this model has lost any wounds, it can regain up to 1 lost wound."
    - Hunters, Predators, Stalkers, Vindicators, and Whirlwinds should be increased to 12 wounds.
    - Landraiders specifically should be increased to 18 wounds.

    That should give the classic tracked Space Marine vehicles some much needed durability. I'd only give the tracked vehicles the Self Repair rule, due to their simpler designs.

    In terms of Primaris vehicles:
    - The Impuslor is simple, it should be increased to 12 wounds and give it Auto Launchers.
    - The Gladiator should be given Auto Launchers by default and have the option to take a Shield Dome.
    - Repulsors should be increased to 18 wounds and have the option to take a Shield Dome.

    Onto the Imperial Guard and some GSC vehicles:
    - Essentially all (ex)Imperial vehicles should benefit from the GSC Rugged Construction rule. The rule should be simplified to "Each time an attack is allocated to this model, subtract 1 from the Damage characteristic of that attack (to a minimum of 1)." The only vehicles that wouldn't get this rule are the non-tracked ones, such as Sentinels due to their more complex nature.

    - Basilisks, Griffon Mortar Carrier, Hydras, and Wyverns should be reduced to 10 wounds. This is a buff and a nerf. It's a nerf to durability but a buff to VP's, as each would now only give 1 VP for Bring it Down.

    - Armageddon-pattern Basilisks and Medusas, Hellhounds, Manticores, and Deathstrikes should be increased to 12 wounds.

    - Leman Russ Tanks should be increased to 14 wounds and given a 2+ save against shooting attacks (3+ save in engagement range). The latter buff is representative of the old armour facing system, when Leman Russ tanks had the same front armour as a Landraider.

    - Stygies Destroyer Tank Hunters should be increased to 12 wounds and given a 2+ save against shooting attacks (3+ save in engagement range).

    - Thunderers should be given a 2+ save against shooting attacks (3+ save in engagement range).
    - Malcadors should be given a 2+ save against shooting attacks (3+ save in engagement range).
    - Valdor Tank Hunters should be reduced to 18 wounds and given a 2+ save against shooting attacks (3+ save in engagement range). Similar to the Basilisks above this drops their Bring it Down VP from 3 to 2, it also puts it inline with the Malcador.

    Imperial Guard Lord of War:
    - Baneblades (and variants): should be increased to 28 wounds and given a 2+ save against shooting attacks (3+ save in engagement range).
    - Macharius Heavy Tanks (and variants): should be increased to 24 wounds and given a 2+ save against shooting attacks (3+ save in engagement range).

    Imperial Guard Stratagems:
    - There needs to be some kind of Pop Smoke! stratagem that lets an Imperial Guard player use a Smoke Launcher in the enemies shooting phase.
    - Jury-Rigging: Change this to heal D3 wounds. 1 CP for 1 wound and the restrictions really isn't worth it 99% of the time.
    - Tech-Adept: Add this stratagem into the Imperial Guard codex, this would make Tech Priest Enginseers more viable. As they could now double repair either a single vehicle, or spread the heals across two vehicles.

    Imperial Guard Regiment Doctrines:
    - Jury-Rigged Repairs: Simplify this to "At the start of your turn, if a vehicle model with this doctrine has lost any wounds, it regains 1 lost wound."

    Imperial Guard Orders:

    - I'd like to see a defensive Tank Order. Something like: Button Up! This vehicle treats AP-1 as AP0 until the start of your next Command phase. If this vehicle has the Armageddon regiment keyword, this bonus becomes AP-2 (it stacks with their regimental doctrine).

    This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/04/25 08:17:08


     
       
    Made in us
    Roarin' Runtherd




    Honestly I'd return the old facings and give tanks varying Toughness values depending upon which side you faced. In addition return to the old 7th edition wounding table.

    For example a Russ could have T9 frontal, T7 on the sides and T6 on the rear. Either provide a diagram for these things or just flat out state that the defender gets the favorable armor facing in the event that there is doubt, which honestly could go either way, but just provide a simple ruling.

    In addition and this is more related to Tank vs infantry weaponry, a tank should easily outgun its infantry counterpart within reason. I can see lighter tanks like Predators with quad lascannons being very comparable to a Lascannon Devastator squad but the Gladiator Lancer should have a much higher chance of defeating vehicle armor.

    One of the other big issues with 40k at least for vehicles is that they cannot use their range advantages over infantry very well. Its a different medium but in steel division 2, my infantry if exposed with have serious issues with tanks unless they can get within 100m of the tank to use things like AT Grenades, Panzerfausts or bazooka. Tanks for reference have 2000m of range on their cannons. In 40k something like a Melta should be very threatening to a Tank but the small size of the board and short range of engagements means that their effectiveness is exaggerated beyond what they could produce. If the board was 10 feet by 6 for instance (usage issues aside) and range actually mattered the importance of things like transports and range on your big guns suddenly becomes a much larger factor. Who cares if your Melta squad can one shot my Russ or Kannonwagon, I'm sitting at 6 times your range and if you try to cross that my tank will blast you to pieces before you get here.

    That aside, Vehicles should have far more firepower than their infantry counter parts, and they should be more durable unless the infantry gets to grips with them. In addition, T should be increased across the board to reflect the massive amounts of armor 40k Tanks have. A Land Raider with essentially T9 all the way around would be a different beast to today, particularly if it was invulnerable to all weapons below strength 6.

    In particular the old wounding table had more defined rolls for its weapons, just because that plasma gun is awesome at burning through the armor of Astartes does not mean it will help against the far thicker armor of this Russ, but if you can flank the tank you have a much better ability to wound it. Ideally the vehicles of the Imperium should be easy to hit but hard to kill (relatively) Dark Eldar as the opposite extreme should be vulnerable but hard to hit and make the damage stick, which they are from what I've seen at least decent at. Having the various factions on that spectrum would go a good way to differentiate the faction's tanks. Then have a small handful of vehicles, perhaps Custodes or the other hyper elite factions have essentially something approximating both approaches to durability but pay through the nose for it.
       
    Made in us
    Longtime Dakkanaut




    I respectively disagree with a lot of that, panzer.
    panzerfront14 wrote:
    Honestly I'd return the old facings and give tanks varying Toughness values depending upon which side you faced. In addition return to the old 7th edition wounding table.

    For example a Russ could have T9 frontal, T7 on the sides and T6 on the rear.

    The issue would be (and used to be) that you can end up with hard skew lists really easily. If I'm fielding something like a mechanized sisters list with lots of immolators and exorcists and you're running, say, a vanilla marine list with lots of points tied up in strength 4 bolters, then a huge chunk of your army is going to be wounding most of my army on 6s. Games like that tend to be frustrating and non-interactive for the guy who isn't mech'd up. So then the meta shifts to going heavily mechanized and/or focusing heavily on anti-tank firepower (like it did in 5th edition), and that hurts list diversity. You stop seeing those second-stringer-but-fun anti-infantry units because you can't squeeze them in after the mandatory 1,000 points of dedicated anti-tank you copy paste into the start of every list you write.


    Either provide a diagram for these things or just flat out state that the defender gets the favorable armor facing in the event that there is doubt, which honestly could go either way, but just provide a simple ruling.

    You're basically saying to just be polite about it and come to a gentlemen's agreement every time there's ambiguity. Which is a great approach for reasonable adults trying to enjoy their game, but bad rules writing. Remember in 7th edition where the rules were so clunky and imbalanced that you had to have a lengthy pregame discussion to gentlemen's agreement the game into a workable shape? You could have fun games doing that, absolutely, but the fact (well, opinion) that you needed to do that was a mark against the rules themselves.

    In addition and this is more related to Tank vs infantry weaponry, a tank should easily outgun its infantry counterpart within reason. I can see lighter tanks like Predators with quad lascannons being very comparable to a Lascannon Devastator squad but the Gladiator Lancer should have a much higher chance of defeating vehicle armor.


    One of the other big issues with 40k at least for vehicles is that they cannot use their range advantages over infantry very well. Its a different medium but in steel division 2, my infantry if exposed with have serious issues with tanks unless they can get within 100m of the tank to use things like AT Grenades, Panzerfausts or bazooka. Tanks for reference have 2000m of range on their cannons. In 40k something like a Melta should be very threatening to a Tank but the small size of the board and short range of engagements means that their effectiveness is exaggerated beyond what they could produce. If the board was 10 feet by 6 for instance (usage issues aside) and range actually mattered the importance of things like transports and range on your big guns suddenly becomes a much larger factor. Who cares if your Melta squad can one shot my Russ or Kannonwagon, I'm sitting at 6 times your range and if you try to cross that my tank will blast you to pieces before you get here.

    The tiny battlefield represented by the average 40k table is pretty weird for vehicles; you're right. However, 40k is a game where infantry walking across the table are meant to be able to meaningfully impact the course of battle. The size of armies has grown over time. The camera has zoomed out. But that 5 man tactical squad that starts the game in your deployment zone is meant to have some weight. That's hard to do if we make the table so large those tacticals can't even reach the enemy deployment zone by the end of the game.


    That aside, Vehicles should have far more firepower than their infantry counter parts, and they should be more durable unless the infantry gets to grips with them. In addition, T should be increased across the board to reflect the massive amounts of armor 40k Tanks have. A Land Raider with essentially T9 all the way around would be a different beast to today, particularly if it was invulnerable to all weapons below strength 6.

    See above points. You would risk making big chunks of one army unable to interact with big chunks of the other army. Plus, those lascannon devs are supposed to be impressive and potent. If they're just slow, squishy, basically inferior alternatives to predators, they're going to feel very underwhelming; even if they're technically balanced against one another via points costs.

    You could maybe get around a lot of this by changing the paradigm of 40k army design significantly. Like, Leman Russes being immune to everything on the table after turn 3 might not be that big an issue if tanks are mini-bosses that you can only have one or two of per army. But that would be a major overhaul of 40k as a whole.

    Dark Eldar as the opposite extreme should be vulnerable but hard to hit and make the damage stick, which they are from what I've seen at least decent at. Having the various factions on that spectrum would go a good way to differentiate the faction's tanks.

    Possibly getting into the weeds, but I'm curious about why you say that. One non-flyer drukhari vehicle has a rule that gives a -1 to hit, which makes it as difficult to hit as any vehicle hiding in the right piece of terrain. Most (all?) of them have mediocre armor but 5+ invulns. Which means they're better at resisting damage from something like a lascannon than a chimera is, but worse at resisting damage from weapons that don't invest in good AP. I guess what I'm getting at is that the "spectrum" you're describing would require other changes to the game that aren't currently supported. You can't really have varying levels of "hard to hit" when to-hit penalties don't stack and there aren't a lot of ways to otherwise modify to-hit rolls. The current rules kind of just make drukhari vehicles more resistant to good AP weapons than chimeras but worse against AP-1 and worse weapons.

    I get where you're coming from with all these points, but I feel like they would be horizontal changes rather than improvements and/or would require some other major changes that would have a ton of fallout.
       
    Made in au
    Regular Dakkanaut




    I've been playing since 3rd edition and I completely understand why GW removed vehicle facings and armour values. It removes tons of arguments and tons of dice rolls.

    The current system they have has many different ways for the factions to be asymmetrically balanced. The only unfortunate thing is GW moving away from higher toughness vehicles. There's an abundance of S9, S10 or higher weapons.

    If most Lord of War choices were T9, with the biggest of them being T10 that'd make them actually feel like centrepiece models. Your normal codex units would actually have to dedicate their heaviest weapons to wound it reliably. Otherwise all those melta and plasma guns will be wounding on 5's.
       
    Made in us
    Longtime Dakkanaut




    I don't know, Jarms. I think GW might actually be on the right track at the moment. Upping a bunch of T8 vehicles to T9+ would mean that my aeldari armies suddenly only have a very short list of weapons that can wound those targets more than 1/3rd of the time. D-weapons, void lances, haywire blasters, fire prisms, and that's about it. Spending all game only wounding my opponent's heavy hitters on 5s and 6s would get frustrating fast.

    On the other hand, giving heavy vehicles a few extra wounds (as they have) and making anti-tank weapons reliably do a bit more damage (as seen with the recent changes to things like melta and dark lances) means that you can feel like you're consistently making progress against enemy vehicles while also giving those vehicles enough wounds to be hard to remove completely with things like plasma.

    We'll see if they stick the landing, but I think they're actually taking a reasonable approach to vehicle survivability and anti-tank at the moment.
       
    Made in au
    Regular Dakkanaut




    Wyldhunt wrote:
    I don't know, Jarms. I think GW might actually be on the right track at the moment. Upping a bunch of T8 vehicles to T9+ would mean that my aeldari armies suddenly only have a very short list of weapons that can wound those targets more than 1/3rd of the time. D-weapons, void lances, haywire blasters, fire prisms, and that's about it. Spending all game only wounding my opponent's heavy hitters on 5s and 6s would get frustrating fast.

    On the other hand, giving heavy vehicles a few extra wounds (as they have) and making anti-tank weapons reliably do a bit more damage (as seen with the recent changes to things like melta and dark lances) means that you can feel like you're consistently making progress against enemy vehicles while also giving those vehicles enough wounds to be hard to remove completely with things like plasma.

    We'll see if they stick the landing, but I think they're actually taking a reasonable approach to vehicle survivability and anti-tank at the moment.


    I definitely agree, I'm just brainstorming other means of balancing mechanics. There are definitely ways you could get around higher toughness. Things like +1 to wound, rerolls to wound, sources of mortal wounds, exploding auto wounds. I'm not saying T10 or even T9 vehicles would be perfect, but it's another means to an end instead of just giving everything an invul save.

    You can see my opinions on how to buff Marine, GSC and Guard vehicles above. Mainly it's just a few wounds here and there.
       
     
    Forum Index » 40K Proposed Rules
    Go to: