Switch Theme:

EPIC 1st ed TSM for 40k  [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 au
Longtime Dakkanaut





Hey all, just an idle thought re vehicles in modern 40k.

Now with the no cap S vs T, vehicles can get shot up pretty easily.

There have been plenty of proposals put forward on how to fix this, so I thought I'd add another one.

In old EPIC, they got around this by not having a 1 on an armour save be a failure. This led to things like superheavies and titans getting 1+ or 0+ saves.

Thus only weapons with high enough penetration would actually be able to harm them.

You could apply this to 40k by increasing vehicle saves in a similar way.

So a land raider could be a 1+, meaning only weapons with at least an AP of -1 will have a chance of hurting it. As this tends to line up fairly well with AT weaponry, this could work fairly well.

A warlord could be a 0+ save, requiring a -2 at minimum to allow for a save failure. This could skew the game more towards AT weapons taking down actual armour. It doesn't matter if you can wound something if it auto saves against you.



   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





Hmm. That's an interesting idea. My first thought is that this runs into a lot of the same problems as the "don't let small arms fire wound vehicles" suggestions, albeit with more units/armies being exempt from that problem. But then on the flip side, you risk making 1+ save vehicles immune to things you maybe didn't mean to.

So if I'm running a vanilla imperial guard list, every lasgun guardsman and multilaser in my army isn't allowed to hurt your landraider. The shuriken weapons in my craftworld lists would still be able to hurt your landraider, and any T7 vehicle with this rule applied would take slightly less damage from shurikens as they rely on the 6+ wound rolls to do most of their damage anyway. This change would work fairly well for drukhari as so many of their weapons are AP-1 anyway, although splinter weapons would be nerfed slightly, and the metallotoxin stratagem (lets you wound vehicles on 4+) would become less useful.

It occurs to me that, unless you're also improving the armor saves of a lot of vehicles, this wouldn't impact very many vehicles in the game. And if you are improving the armor saves on a lot of vehicles to 2+, that's going to create a big balance shift all on its own.

And that's assuming we're only talking about applying the "saves of 1 aren't a failure" rule to vehicles. If you carried that over to non-vehicles, I feel like you'd create a lot of situations where things like sang guard and terminators are basically immune to huge chunks of the enemy army; especially in melee. Like, gauss weapons mean necrons are largely unaffected by this change when shooting at vehicles, but they'd be functionally barred from hurting a terminator with this rule if he's standing in hard cover or just has a 1+ save by default.

Also, I'm still not convinced that vehicle durability is in a bad place. Small arms can contribute to killing a vehicle but are generally pretty bad at pulling it off on their own. Modern anti-tank weapons (meltas, dark lances, etc.) are pretty efficient at killing vehicles, which is what you want from a specialized weapons. Plasma is better at chipping down vehicles than small arms fire, but is less good at it than meltas and dark lances.

Is that not where we want to be? What is the perceived problem we're trying to solve, and is that problem basically just one or two specific options?

Also also, if we assume that vehicles do need a durability boost, is simply giving them a few more wounds perhaps a preferable solution? So that we avoid the aforementioned problems of preventing many weapons from being allowed to hurt vehicles?


ATTENTION
. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
 
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle





In My Lab

I’ve seen this suggestion before.
And I’d like to ask what Nurgle Daemons could do if it was implemented.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in au
Longtime Dakkanaut





The main reason is that AP is more varied than strength so you shouldn't get the can't wound swings of old.

In terms of durability etc, it would be partly to reduce the wounds tracking, in that you'd potentially be able to have fewer wounds on vehicles and change toughness.

I'd go something like:

Light 3+
Medium: 2+
Heavy: 1+
Superheavy: 0+


A superheavy may only need 10 wounds at 0+ for example and T may not need to go as high, or at least there might not be a need to push them higher.



   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





 Hellebore wrote:
The main reason is that AP is more varied than strength so you shouldn't get the can't wound swings of old.

I think JNA and I share the concern here that you would still have the "can't hurt my army" swings. They'd just be a bit less common. As JNA said, what would Nurgle daemons do if they ran into an army full of 1+ save vehicles?

In terms of durability etc, it would be partly to reduce the wounds tracking, in that you'd potentially be able to have fewer wounds on vehicles and change toughness.
...
A superheavy may only need 10 wounds at 0+ for example and T may not need to go as high, or at least there might not be a need to push them higher.

That sounds like we might end up in a similar spot to the 6th(?) edition hull point system. Which had the downsides of:
A.) I'll be frustrated when you bring a heavy vehicle skew list that basically invalidates everything in my army that isn't carrying an anti-tank weapon.
B.) You'll be frustrated when my lascannon gets lucky and one-shots your 6 wound heavy vehicle.

So I see possible downsides to this proposal. Circling back...

Small arms can contribute to killing a vehicle but are generally pretty bad at pulling it off on their own. Modern anti-tank weapons (meltas, dark lances, etc.) are pretty efficient at killing vehicles, which is what you want from a specialized weapons. Plasma is better at chipping down vehicles than small arms fire, but is less good at it than meltas and dark lances.

Is that not where we want to be?
...
is simply giving them a few more wounds perhaps a preferable solution?



ATTENTION
. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut



London

Personally I would prefer something else from Epic - anti tank.

A weapon could be marked 'anti tank' in its notes.

When firing at a vehicle weapons that are 'anti tank' shoot normally. Weapons that are not 'anti tank' have -1 to hit.

When firing at infantry, 'anti tank' weapons are at -1 to hit, everything else shoots normally.

Light vehicles/Monstrous creatures would be shot by everything normally.

The idea is that damaging vehicles with general weaponry is harder than dedicated systems. It puts more hard choices into weapon and target selection.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





The_Real_Chris wrote:
Personally I would prefer something else from Epic - anti tank.

A weapon could be marked 'anti tank' in its notes.

When firing at a vehicle weapons that are 'anti tank' shoot normally. Weapons that are not 'anti tank' have -1 to hit.

When firing at infantry, 'anti tank' weapons are at -1 to hit, everything else shoots normally.

Light vehicles/Monstrous creatures would be shot by everything normally.

The idea is that damaging vehicles with general weaponry is harder than dedicated systems. It puts more hard choices into weapon and target selection.

The game designer in me finds that interesting, but what problem is it solving? Do rubric marines and guardsmen with lasguns really need to be less effective against rhinos than they currently are? Do lascannons need to be worse at killing orks?

And of course you run into the 9th edition weirdness of non-stacking to-hit modifiers. If someone is shooting at my wave serpent with a non-anti-tank heavy weapon, they may as well move, shoot through trees, and pretend I'm not using Lightning Fast Reactions while they do it.


ATTENTION
. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






This could be easily applied without adding another keyword, and would make a lot of sense (rather than a bolter being less likely to hit a rhino than a gretchin) - apply it to Heavy.

Heavy Weapons get -1 to hit when they move. They get a further -1 to hit if they are shooting at Infantry and they move.

Then (rightly) retcon the "no change outside of ±1" rule to be "no change outside of ±1, except self-imposed ones such as moving & shooting heavy weapons". so self imposed negative modifiers (like moving and then firing a heavy weapon using a unit which gets -1 to hit in ranged and +1 to hit in melee this round) all add up. A simple way to make this work is to replace any and every instance of non-self-imposed version with a condition with a single name - let's say "Screwed" for arguments sake, as I can't think of a good name right now!

So you say "Aircraft - any ranged weapon which targets this is Screwed". Then a psychic power - "Any ranged attack targeting this unit is Screwed", and so on. "Screwed simply says: "Attacks which are Screwed suffer -1 to hit".

Then have "Boosted", which is the opposite for all the +1 to hit effects.

Then you have "Moving and shooting heavy weapons confers -1 to hit", "Moving and shooting a heavy weapon at infantry confers an additional -1 to hit". Everything else is Boosted or Screwed. That becomes a condition, thus you can't have it multiple times, and so it self regulates. All abilities which don't use Boosted or Screwed would stack.


I'm also a big fan of vehicles ignoring small-arms, and thus being allowed to have less wounds, and so making anti-tank more effective, and thus making anti-tank more expensive and vehicles slightly cheaper, all without actually increasing lethality.

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!

I also make designs for t-shirts and mugs and such on Redbubble! 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





@some bloke: I like the screwed/boosted suggestion. Good way to allow some easy-to-track stackable to-hit penalties without letting them get too out of hand.

I'm not a fan of making vehicles immune to small arms because it can make skew lists more of a problem, but I get that some people are really against the notion of a lasgun chipping away at a tank.


ATTENTION
. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
 
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Chaplain with Hate to Spare






I like the 1+ armor idea. I also hate the current to-wound chart. I think it's fine if some units are immune to certain weapons.

Other additions concerning vehicles
1: Also from old epic iirc, firing at a vehicle from the flank/rear reduces its save.

2: Models armed with grenades can use them to atrack vehicles in CC. Frag at S4, Krak at S6.

Guardsmen couldn't hurt tanks with their Lasguns, but could Assault and plant grenades. Bonus for attacking the side/rear.

And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K Proposed Rules
Go to: