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.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:


There's far too many cases where vehicles and monsters overlap for them to be ignored like this.

I guess the point is how YOU want it to feel. Do you want vehicles to feel different from monsters or exactly the same?

Considering that many of those are massive grey areas between eachother, that 40k is filled with monsters that are better described as "living battering rams", and then vehicles which move even more fluidly than some infantry, I think that it's rather a case of "should this be a target for anti-infantry weapons, or for the BIG guns"?

If you want things to "feel" differently, then give things agility stats, increase their manoeuvrability, or stats that reflect their reaction time. But arbitrarily saying "this is biological, so it's a monster" and "this is mechanical, so it's a tank" ignore that in 40k, many "mechanical" things move like infantry, and many "biological" things act more like tanks. Do you dispute that fact?

I personally think dinosaurs should feel different than tanks, because they are different than tanks. I think living things and machines are fundamentally different, and rules should convey this.

And I personally think that things that behave like a tank, whether biological or not, should be treated like one, and not given some special dispensation because their armour is made out of chitin tougher than the plating of a light tank. If it moves like a tank, shrugs off damage like a tank, and is frequently referred to *as* a biological tank... it should share the same rules as tanks. What about being a living being means you can't have your arms blown off, or get stunned by a lascannon round? What about being a living being doesn't stop your chitinous plates having weapon spots, like at the back? What about being a living being stops you from being slower than the mechanical construct created by psychoactive materials and insane technology?

A lot of rules are about fluff, giving the sense of the thing that it is. Thus differentiation is a feature, not a bug.

Why? Why should they be differentiated? Why is a Carnifex different to a Dreadnought? Why is a Tyrannofex immune to its rupture cannon being damaged, but a Vindicator is not?

I've asked the above questions, but you don't explain why there's a distinction, because you're not addressing the grey areas.

But if your design objective is to make infantry and super-heavy tanks merely stops on one long continuum, I guess GW has found a system to do that, and vehicles don't have variable armor, just abstract levels of hits, so there's no point in finding weak spots because they don't exist.

No, because then you give BOTH vehicles and monsters weak spots. Not sure why you can't recognise that.

I mean, a carnifex might see the flash of artillery and turn to offer its thickest part of carapace, which is something tanks absolutely cannot do. You can't have a tank reflexively do a 90 degree spin to ensure its glacis takes the hit.

And the meltagunners from behind it? It can just rotate to deflect those, at the same time? You're suggesting that Carnifexes, Tyrannofexes, Tervigons, etc can just INSTANTLY rotate at all times to make sure their carapace is in the right place constantly? And that something like a Vyper or Starweaver or Venom can't jink and dodge to ensure its hull is where it needs to be? That a Stormsurge, even while anchored to the ground, can just pivot and rotate without any issues?

That's laughably abstracted, more so than any issue between "biological" and "mechanical". I'm MORE than happy with "biological" or "mechanical" keywords (oh! like MONSTER and VEHICLE!) to represent poisons working differently to EMPs, but in terms of how they receive damage, how they take wounds, etc? No. They are functionally the same.

That's not to say I'm tied to "only Wound counters, nothing more" - instead, have Monsters ALSO suffer from a damage table. They can be shaken, stunned, immobilised, etc. Why is that a problem for you? Then you have your units which function differently to infantry, which you need to flank and position around to be effective, which take damage in a unique, specific way, while also accommodating for the fact that many of these monsters are functionally tanks in their own right, and should play by the same rules.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:
I'd like to see greater division between living and non-living things.

Many living beings behave more like a tank than the non-living ones in 40k though. Carnifex vs Riptide, for example.

One thing I forgot to address is the difference in response time between an ork and a Striking Scorpion.

In the edition I play, it's a big deal! High initiative allows one to dodge certain weapon attacks, sense hidden units at greater distances and gives one an edge in close combat.

But what about at range? In responding to changing battlefield circumstances and retaliatory fire? You know - the same treatment you compared between a being which is in intimate connection with its externals, and one that has to use a control interface?

Again, it's all about what people want, what makes the game feel authentic.

Okay - I think it's more authentic that a biological tank behaves more like a tank than a foot soldier. I think it's more authentic that a monster can have its limbs blown off, staggered, and luckily killed, in the same way a tank or walker can.

I like tanks, so I liked rules that made them behave differently than demonic or living things.

But what happens when those demonic and living things behave like a tank? Like how we've seen them do in 40k?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
And the meltagunners from behind it? It can just rotate to deflect those, at the same time? You're suggesting that Carnifexes, Tyrannofexes, Tervigons, etc can just INSTANTLY rotate at all times to make sure their carapace is in the right place constantly?

No, I'm not saying that, and I think you know that. It takes far more time and effort for a tank to reverse its facing than a living creature that has legs, hips, a waist joint, etc. Indeed, this is why mechanical walkers exist.

I would also posit that a tank crew - especially one that is buttoned up - has far less situational awareness than a monster.

Starweavers are the Harlequin Transport.
Venoms are the Dark Eldar Transport.
They are NOT Jetbikes.

And losing a limb is traumatic... To a HUMAN.
Orks can be decapitated and their head sewn onto a new body, and be fine. I can't imagine a Carnifex has pain receptors in the same way humans do-they need to be aware of if they're taking damage, but given that they lack human essentials like a digestive system (they're purpose-made for a battle, and go into the digestive pools for biomass recycling when done) it'd be much more akin to just being aware of it, not traumatized or stopped by it (generally speaking).
Hell, Space Marines can, if I recall correctly, clot normally traumatic injuries in moments.

You're arguing from a point of modern-day realism. That's not accurate to 40k.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Starweavers are the Harlequin Transport.
Venoms are the Dark Eldar Transport.
They are NOT Jetbikes.

Then why lump them in with Vypers???

And losing a limb is traumatic... To a HUMAN.

Humans aren't unique in that respect, but I guess that argues against Tyranids being treated like human tank crews, doesn't it?

Orks can be decapitated and their head sewn onto a new body, and be fine.

But that's only because it's funny.

I can't imagine a Carnifex has pain receptors in the same way humans do-they need to be aware of if they're taking damage, but given that they lack human essentials like a digestive system (they're purpose-made for a battle, and go into the digestive pools for biomass recycling when done) it'd be much more akin to just being aware of it, not traumatized or stopped by it (generally speaking).

Again, this is why they wouldn't ever be "shaken" or "stunned."

Hell, Space Marines can, if I recall correctly, clot normally traumatic injuries in moments.

Space Marines rule. Everyone knows that.

You're arguing from a point of modern-day realism. That's not accurate to 40k.

Well yes, I think it makes a good starting point.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Starweavers are the Harlequin Transport.
Venoms are the Dark Eldar Transport.
They are NOT Jetbikes.

Then why lump them in with Vypers???

And losing a limb is traumatic... To a HUMAN.

Humans aren't unique in that respect, but I guess that argues against Tyranids being treated like human tank crews, doesn't it?

Orks can be decapitated and their head sewn onto a new body, and be fine.

But that's only because it's funny.

I can't imagine a Carnifex has pain receptors in the same way humans do-they need to be aware of if they're taking damage, but given that they lack human essentials like a digestive system (they're purpose-made for a battle, and go into the digestive pools for biomass recycling when done) it'd be much more akin to just being aware of it, not traumatized or stopped by it (generally speaking).

Again, this is why they wouldn't ever be "shaken" or "stunned."

Hell, Space Marines can, if I recall correctly, clot normally traumatic injuries in moments.

Well yes, Space Marines rule. Everyone knows that.

You're arguing from a point of modern-day realism. That's not accurate to 40k.

Well yes, I think it makes a good starting point.

Because Vypers are also Vehicles, at least according to the rules.

Humans aren't unique in that respect, but they're in the minority in 40k.

And no, it's because Orks are ridiculously durable. Like a Space Marine is. Or a Necron. Or a Tyranid. It's humans and Tau that are the real squishy ones.

A Carnifex can be knocked off balance, requiring it to get back into position before firing effectively. A Carnifex can have important, but not vital, organs destroyed and need a few moments to regenerate them. A Carnifex can have a limb entirely severed or blown off, rendering it inoperable for the battle.
Your lack of imagination isn't universal.

Not gonna comment.

And while it's an okay starting point, it's NOT a good ending point. But your posts are ending there.

 JNAProductions wrote:
And while it's an okay starting point, it's NOT a good ending point. But your posts are ending there.

Let's set aside the question of how much pain a Carnifex feels and get back to the core issue, which you did not address.

Tanks have a quantifiable level of protection that by design renders certain portions of them harder to damage than others. You can measure it to the millimeter and it's often certified as "proof" against specific weapons.

We don't have to parse shoulder vs claw, shin vs foot, it's right there in the specs. Representing this within the game would add a bit of fluff, some additional tactical twists, so why not include it?

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
And while it's an okay starting point, it's NOT a good ending point. But your posts are ending there.

Let's set aside the question of how much pain a Carnifex feels and get back to the core issue, which you did not address.

Tanks have a quantifiable level of protection that by design renders certain portions of them harder to damage than others. You can measure it to the millimeter and it's often certified as "proof" against specific weapons.

We don't have to parse shoulder vs claw, shin vs foot, it's right there in the specs. Representing this within the game would add a bit of fluff, some additional tactical twists, so why not include it?

Why add it JUST for vehicles, though?
Put another way, how would you differentiate Infantry from Monsters?

Respectfully, Toussant, I feel like you've been avoiding addressing a lot of the main points we've been bringing up.

What is it about an exocrine that you think makes its gun impossible to destroy while a vindicator's gun is not? And while we're at it, why do you feel the other vehicle damage results I've listed in previous posts couldn't apply to monsters?

In what ways (that deserve rules representation) do you think a maulerfiend (AKA the "dinobot") behaves differently than a dinosaur? And conversely, why do you seem to be under the impression that a sluggish, chonky thing like an exocrine is somehow better at changing its facing than a vindicator or predator?

You keep saying some variation on this:

I think living things and machines are fundamentally different, and rules should convey this.

But any specific examples you've given of how they differ haven't held up to scrutiny, and you seem to be (probably unintentionally) moving the goalposts.

You've presented the notion that they're different because multiple crewmen make them better at multitasking. We countered with examples of monsters that multi-task equally well or better and asked why you think explicitly single-crew vehicles would benefit in the same way you claim multi-crew vehicles should.

You've presented the notion that big, chunky monsters are using their apparently very fast reaction times to turn on a dime and cover their weak spots despite people pointing out that this seems unlikely for many monsters and probably quite possible for many vehicles.

Now you're saying that monsters actually can't spin around to defend against flanking enemies, but apparently this inability to protect themselves the way you previously described doesn't mean they should be more vulnerable when being flanked the way you think vehicles should be.

Respectfully, if we take a step back and breathe, is it possible that you just really latched onto the notion that you like vehicle rules without examining that preference in-depth, and now you're digging your heels in out of reflex rather than because you're giving the points we're making a fair shake?

If so, it's fine. We've all been that guy. But it really feels like you're stretching to avoid having to change your mind.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Why add it JUST for vehicles, though?
Put another way, how would you differentiate Infantry from Monsters?

Because I don't have the design specs for the monsters. As I said, tank armor is quantifiable in a way flesh, bone and chitin are not. Biological creatures are also fluid in a way steel (or plasteel or whatever) are not.

As you pointed out, a carnifex can be knocked back. That actually absorbs some of the energy, resulting in less damage. A tank just stands there and takes it. Shoot a limb on a monster, and it will probably flap or swing, perhaps cause the round to merely graze the area.

There is no physical reaction possible on the glacis plate. It either takes the shot or doesn't. Hit a tank on the side armor with appropriate ammunition and the vehicle's designers will tell you it is toast.

But if you shoot an animal, who knows?

I recall a time I shot at a deer. It fell down! Awesome! Except that it was reacting to the noise of the shot. It jumped up and bounded away.

Tanks can't do that. You either see the tracer miss, or ping off of it or if you are lucky there goes the turret!

Animals can react, because it's their bodies, their skin. Tanks just sit there and take it until the crew pull back or bails out - or dies. That's part of what makes them cool - that mechanical callousness.

Demons and such can be callous, but it's in a different way. That's all I'm saying.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Why add it JUST for vehicles, though?
Put another way, how would you differentiate Infantry from Monsters?

Because I don't have the design specs for the monsters. As I said, tank armor is quantifiable in a way flesh, bone and chitin are not. Biological creatures are also fluid in a way steel (or plasteel or whatever) are not.

As you pointed out, a carnifex can be knocked back. That actually absorbs some of the energy, resulting in less damage. A tank just stands there and takes it. Shoot a limb on a monster, and it will probably flap or swing, perhaps cause the round to merely graze the area.

There is no physical reaction possible on the glacis plate. It either takes the shot or doesn't. Hit a tank on the side armor with appropriate ammunition and the vehicle's designers will tell you it is toast.

But if you shoot an animal, who knows?

I recall a time I shot at a deer. It fell down! Awesome! Except that it was reacting to the noise of the shot. It jumped up and bounded away.

Tanks can't do that. You either see the tracer miss, or ping off of it or if you are lucky there goes the turret!

Animals can react, because it's their bodies, their skin. Tanks just sit there and take it until the crew pull back or bails out - or dies. That's part of what makes them cool - that mechanical callousness.

Demons and such can be callous, but it's in a different way. That's all I'm saying.

What are the specs for a Land Raider?
What are the specs for the psycoactive Wraithbone of a Wave Serpent?
What are the specs for a Living Metal Ghost Ark?

And real world animals react like that. Again-this is 40k.

Also, I'm quite certain that you can potentially shoot the antler off a deer or the legs off of a bear or whatever given the right weapon. I'm also quite certain that a deer's ability to freak out and duck doesn't make it immune to having its limbs damaged (immobilized, weapon destroyed) or being killed outright by a single shot (wrecked).

I'm also fairly certain we don't have firm knowledge of how well a dreadnaught can be "knocked back" or the exact physics involved in shooting a laser cannon at an alien hover tank.

As I said previously, all units in the game only do 3 things, move, shoot, fight.

If you can conceive of an attack blowing off a tanks gun, then you can also conceive of that same attack blowing off a wraithlords gun.

If you can conceive of an attack immobilising a tanks track, you can also conceive of it immobilising a carnifexes leg.

The only thing stopping you doing this is a subjective standard youve trained yourself in, not because it can't happen.

Every scif tv, movie or anime with big monsters has no problem with their weapons and locomotion being damaged by attacks. It's only wilful obstinacy that prevents you doing the same with magic/space monsters in a game...

 Wyldhunt wrote:

I think living things and machines are fundamentally different, and rules should convey this.

But any specific examples you've given of how they differ haven't held up to scrutiny, and you seem to be (probably unintentionally) moving the goalposts.

There are two discussions going on which are criss-crossing each other.

One is the notion of having rules for side/rear armor. I like it because it is both realistic and creates tactical depth. But...

For the record: If you want animals to have side/rear armor, cool.

The biggest issue I see is that trying to get a template for some of these things is going to be really hard, particularly where you have twisted torsos and other dynamic poses. Square bases would be the only solution I see with the "front" clearly indicated.

Previous editions did not do this for that reason, but the OP was calling back to mechanic that did exist, wondering if it could be recreated.

As to the organic vs machine thing, this is a HUGE deal philosophically, and massive amounts of sci-fi focuses on the conflict between the two (see also Avatar, Star Trek, etc.). Part of the background on 40k is that the Imperium is totally paranoid regarding pure computing power, and seeks to create a biological interface with it, thus highlighting the difference.

Thus, if you are into that massive amount of sci-fi that examines this, it is natural to feel that this should be reflected in a gaming environment.

However, there seem to be people who feel that it's irrelevant for a variety of reasons, which is fine, and that's probably why I play a different version of the rules where this division was more profound. Fewer factions, greater differentiation.

My purpose in responding to the OP was simply to express support for more realistic vehicle rules, which I enjoy, but things obviously got a bit off topic.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

There are two discussions going on which are criss-crossing each other.

One is the notion of having rules for side/rear armor. I like it because it is both realistic and creates tactical depth. But...

For the record: If you want animals to have side/rear armor, cool.

Fair enough I've written and replied to various suggestions for how to make that work earlier in the thread. We can probably set that aside for now.

As to the organic vs machine thing, this is a HUGE deal philosophically, and massive amounts of sci-fi focuses on the conflict between the two (see also Avatar, Star Trek, etc.). Part of the background on 40k is that the Imperium is totally paranoid regarding pure computing power, and seeks to create a biological interface with it, thus highlighting the difference.

Thus, if you are into that massive amount of sci-fi that examines this, it is natural to feel that this should be reflected in a gaming environment.

Respectfully, I believe this is another moving of the goal post, and I think it's worth pointing that out for the sake of the discussion. (Not trying to attack you about it.) It sounds here like you don't believe there's some in-universe reason for monsters to be treated differently from vehicles. You don't seem to think that an exocrine's gun is indestructible or that a carnifex can never have its legs blown off. Rather, it sounds like you want them to be different purely for the sake of being different. Or rather, for the sake of vaguely reflecting a specific theme sometimes explored by imperials specifically.

In which case... I just don't agree that that's a good enough reason to complicate the rules of the game with bespoke vehicles-only mechanics. If you're going to mechanically represent blasting the arm off a dreadnaught, you should mechanically represent blasting the arm off a carnifex.

My purpose in responding to the OP was simply to express support for more realistic vehicle rules, which I enjoy, but things obviously got a bit off topic.

That's fine. I don't think anyone here wants to rake you over the coals. It's just that the arguments you've been making haven't really held up, and it's hard not to respond to that sort of thing.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
And the meltagunners from behind it? It can just rotate to deflect those, at the same time? You're suggesting that Carnifexes, Tyrannofexes, Tervigons, etc can just INSTANTLY rotate at all times to make sure their carapace is in the right place constantly?

No, I'm not saying that, and I think you know that.

Your literal words were "a carnifex might see the flash of artillery and turn to offer its thickest part of carapace" - and how does it do that when attacked from all sides? Are you implying that a Carnifex can do that for all attacks? If not, then why is a Carnifex not also vulnerable to flanking?

It takes far more time and effort for a tank to reverse its facing than a living creature that has legs, hips, a waist joint, etc. Indeed, this is why mechanical walkers exist.

So how does a Stormsurge, while anchored into the ground, have a faster reaction time than a Starweaver, which can freely float and manoeuvre? How does an Exocrine, a creature LESS intelligent than the gun it carries, outmanoeuvre a Pirahna?

You're not responding to the examples you're being offered. You seem to think that ALL tanks are these lumbering slow treaded things (like Imperial vehicles), and that all Monsters react like deer and humans - but there's so many cases where that simply isn't true, and you're not addressing them.

I would also posit that a tank crew - especially one that is buttoned up - has far less situational awareness than a monster.

Not all vehicles crews ARE buttoned up. All Dark Eldar vehicles, many Ork buggies and trukks, Land Speeders, etc are all open topped. Many, like Repulsors, have sensors dotted all around them. They'd have MORE awareness than many monsters, simply because they aren't limited to one pair of eyes.

And that something like a Vyper or Starweaver or Venom can't jink and dodge to ensure its hull is where it needs to be? That a Stormsurge, even while anchored to the ground, can just pivot and rotate without any issues?

Jetbikes aren't tanks, neither are aircraft. They are vehicles with their own aspects and historically their armor rating was the same all-round for this reason.

Vypers, Starweavers, and Venoms aren't jetbikes or aircraft. They're vehicles. You're arguing that vehicles should function differently to Monsters, not just tanks. Their armour may have been all around, but they still played like tanks, not like monsters, because they used the same AV system, the same Damage table, and subject to the same restrictions. Meanwhile, "monsters" like Riptides, Stormsurges, and Wraithknights, which were mechanical/psychomechanical in nature, functioned like Monsters, and were incapable of being stunned, immobilised, or having their weapons destroyed.

You wanna bring historical into this? Explain those.

That's laughably abstracted, more so than any issue between "biological" and "mechanical".

No, it's more detailed. Abstraction is where tanks and carnifexes both have the same stat system as infantry.

Good job I didn't argue for that.

That's not to say I'm tied to "only Wound counters, nothing more" - instead, have Monsters ALSO suffer from a damage table. They can be shaken, stunned, immobilised, etc. Why is that a problem for you?

If you want to add that level of detail, feel free to do it. However, severing a limb is a far more traumatic event for a living being than merely having a sponson weapon rendered in operable, or a bogie wheel blown off. Tank crews have been known to bail out of damaged vehicles unscathed. Losing an arm or leg tends to be a bit more significant, and the game should reflect that.

Carnifexes are literally biological battering rams. You don't think the Hive Mind would have figured out a way to make them more resilient to pain? Old One Eye LITERALLY lost an eye and is still going. Space Marines can be bisected and survive. Orks can be beheaded and get sewn together. I think you're speaking from a far too human perspective here.

But what about at range? In responding to changing battlefield circumstances and retaliatory fire? You know - the same treatment you compared between a being which is in intimate connection with its externals, and one that has to use a control interface?

If you want to add that layer of detail in order to allow flank hits on tanks, I'll allow it.

Simple. Have tanks and monsters use the same rules. Done.

I think it useful to go back to the core contention, which is that tanks are generally designed to have their strongest armor on the front. Because they can only carry so much weight, the sides and rear are armored to a different standard.

So are Carnifexes. Biological battering rams.

Animals are different. While there are points where they are more and less vulnerable, they can rotate their facing more easily and - this is the key part - will often do so without any deliberate intent. It also takes more time for the tank commander to issue the order and the driver to carry it out, engage the transmission and hit the accelerator than it does for a monster to decide to turn back and forth.

But can these animals do so CONSTANTLY, from all angles, against all vectors of attack? I mention again the meltagunners and artillery attacking a Carnifex. Can the carnifex face ALL directions to show it's strongest carapace? You claimed that's not what you argued, but you repeat it here.

The point remains that machines are purpose-built to a quantifiable penetration standard. Frontal armor stops main guns, side/rear are only immune to small arms. I don't think animals are set up that way.

Earth animals, no. But a Carnifex, *literally built like a biological battering ram*? Yes, absolutely. You want to mention a "quantifiable penetration standard"? Measure the thickness of it's chitin!

You are using real life examples. 40k isn't.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Starweavers are the Harlequin Transport.
Venoms are the Dark Eldar Transport.
They are NOT Jetbikes.

Then why lump them in with Vypers???

Vypers are also vehicles. Check the rules.

And losing a limb is traumatic... To a HUMAN.

Humans aren't unique in that respect, but I guess that argues against Tyranids being treated like human tank crews, doesn't it?

Huh??? No-one's saying the tyranid is like a tank crew. They're saying that the tyranid is like the TANK.

I can't imagine a Carnifex has pain receptors in the same way humans do-they need to be aware of if they're taking damage, but given that they lack human essentials like a digestive system (they're purpose-made for a battle, and go into the digestive pools for biomass recycling when done) it'd be much more akin to just being aware of it, not traumatized or stopped by it (generally speaking).

Again, this is why they wouldn't ever be "shaken" or "stunned."

Enough concussive force will "shake" or "stun" anything. Space Marines on tabletop aren't getting "shaken" or "stunned", but the sheer concussive force of the missile launcher hitting the Rhino affects the tank itself. The Carnifex might not be "injured", but it can still be hit by massive force.

You're arguing from a point of modern-day realism. That's not accurate to 40k.

Well yes, I think it makes a good starting point.

And it's a terrible ending point. We can look at starting points, realise how woefully incapable they are at reflecting 40k's myriad of OTT living battering rams, daemonically imbued constructs, and psychoactive mechs, and say "hmmm, what's this CLOSER to in real life"?

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:Let's set aside the question of how much pain a Carnifex feels and get back to the core issue, which you did not address.

You're the one serially not addressing points. Like the overlaps between things that are biological, but act more like tanks, the mechanical things that act more like infantry, how biological things (according to you) apparently can't lose limbs, and how mechanical things are the only ones that have defined arcs or vulnerability and can be stunned/shaken.

Tanks have a quantifiable level of protection that by design renders certain portions of them harder to damage than others. You can measure it to the millimeter and it's often certified as "proof" against specific weapons.

We don't have to parse shoulder vs claw, shin vs foot, it's right there in the specs. Representing this within the game would add a bit of fluff, some additional tactical twists, so why not include it?

You can with Tyranid chitin too. Meanwhile, you care to tell me how think Repulsor armour is? The strength of Wraithbone? The thickness of the armour on a Forgefiend?

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Why add it JUST for vehicles, though?
Put another way, how would you differentiate Infantry from Monsters?

Because I don't have the design specs for the monsters. As I said, tank armor is quantifiable in a way flesh, bone and chitin are not. Biological creatures are also fluid in a way steel (or plasteel or whatever) are not.

You don't have the design specs for Repulsors. You don't have the design specs for wraithbone. You don't have the design specs for daemonic steel.

As you pointed out, a carnifex can be knocked back. That actually absorbs some of the energy, resulting in less damage. A tank just stands there and takes it. Shoot a limb on a monster, and it will probably flap or swing, perhaps cause the round to merely graze the area.

So you're saying there's NO WAY a Carnifex could ever lose a limb, because it can always flap and swing, and it's immune? Again, going back to the meltagunners and artillery aiming at a Carnifex - the fex ALWAYS knows how to dodge every attack so it never loses limbs or gets stunned?

Animals can react, because it's their bodies, their skin. Tanks just sit there and take it until the crew pull back or bails out - or dies. That's part of what makes them cool - that mechanical callousness.

And what happens when you have "vehicles" made out of psychoactive material or when that's also literally the skin of the creature (Daemon engines, Eldar wraith constructs)? What happens when you have animals that can't react fully to everything (an Exocrine, a Tyrannocyte)? What happens when you have creatures that are designed to absorb the hits like a tank, because they are the faction's equivalent to a tank (Carnifexes).

You fixate on the idea that a tank is ONLY X, and a monster is ONLY Y, but you ignore all the overlaps and cases where one is more like the other. You continue to propagate the idea that monsters can't be immobilised, stunned, have their limbs removed, or be put down by a critical single shot, and that all vehicles are these slow, lumbering hulks. Please, you're not actually responding to the examples being raised here.

How would you differentiate between a Stormsurge and Knight? A Carnifex and Forgefiend? A Wraithlord and Dreadnought? A Tyrannocyte and Drop Pod?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Wyldhunt wrote:

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:
As to the organic vs machine thing, this is a HUGE deal philosophically, and massive amounts of sci-fi focuses on the conflict between the two (see also Avatar, Star Trek, etc.).

Respectfully, I believe this is another moving of the goal post, and I think it's worth pointing that out for the sake of the discussion. (Not trying to attack you about it.) It sounds here like you don't believe there's some in-universe reason for monsters to be treated differently from vehicles. You don't seem to think that an exocrine's gun is indestructible or that a carnifex can never have its legs blown off. Rather, it sounds like you want them to be different purely for the sake of being different. Or rather, for the sake of vaguely reflecting a specific theme sometimes explored by imperials specifically.

In which case... I just don't agree that that's a good enough reason to complicate the rules of the game with bespoke vehicles-only mechanics. If you're going to mechanically represent blasting the arm off a dreadnaught, you should mechanically represent blasting the arm off a carnifex.

My purpose in responding to the OP was simply to express support for more realistic vehicle rules, which I enjoy, but things obviously got a bit off topic.

That's fine. I don't think anyone here wants to rake you over the coals. It's just that the arguments you've been making haven't really held up, and it's hard not to respond to that sort of thing.

Agreed on all fronts! There's nothing personal here, but points are being raised, and you're simply not addressing them. Carnifexes being immune to having their limbs shot off, certain creatures not neatly fitting in between vehicle and monster (daemon engines), certain mechanical things being treated as monsters when they're closer to vehicles, etc.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
And while it's an okay starting point, it's NOT a good ending point. But your posts are ending there.

Let's set aside the question of how much pain a Carnifex feels and get back to the core issue, which you did not address.

Tanks have a quantifiable level of protection that by design renders certain portions of them harder to damage than others. You can measure it to the millimeter and it's often certified as "proof" against specific weapons.

We don't have to parse shoulder vs claw, shin vs foot, it's right there in the specs. Representing this within the game would add a bit of fluff, some additional tactical twists, so why not include it?

Why add it JUST for vehicles, though?
Put another way, how would you differentiate Infantry from Monsters?

Monsters will generally have way more wounds and higher toughness. But you can also bring back the old Monster unit type which had a bunch of its own rules. Back in 5th edition, monsters ignored difficult terrain, could fire 2 weapons per turn instead of 1, their melee attacks ignored armor saves, and their melee attacks rolled 2D6 to penetrate vehicles.

So they were definitely a lot more than just infantry with more toughness and wounds.

Honestly, 5th edition was peak 40k.

5th was my first and least favorite edition of 40k. Yes, even worse than 6th and 7th.

Sergeant, I think you're being a little needlessly harsh on the Commissar. I understand where he's coming from and I like the premise of having vehicles suffer differently than creatures, but it's clear the problem is there's too much variation, too many exceptions between boxy tanks at one end and nimble alien monsters at the other.

Maybe a modern game would use 4 keywords for categories: nimble vs rigid and biological vs mechanical. That way Imperial tanks would all be rigid and mechanical and could use facings and the classic vehicle status chart.
40k's modern era of everything just being toughness and wounds is certainly more streamlined of course.

I also see you're asking why monsters would be immune to a crossfire mechanic if vehicles aren't, but I don't think anyone said that. Any sort of enemy would be vulnerable to crossfire except I suppose a higher dimensional being. +1 for daemons and c'tan.

5th edition MC rules were quite limited. Lack of damage table for MCs, lack of Damage as a characteristic. You couldn't suppress them, you couldn't cripple them or flank them. Either you could kill MCs or you couldn't and that made them quite binary in terms of balance. Either they were squishy and easy to kill or hard targets that pretty much shrugged off everything and not a lot of middle ground.

 Dominar_Jameson_V wrote:
Sergeant, I think you're being a little needlessly harsh on the Commissar. I understand where he's coming from and I like the premise of having vehicles suffer differently than creatures, but it's clear the problem is there's too much variation, too many exceptions between boxy tanks at one end and nimble alien monsters at the other.

Politely, if the first points I had made had been actually discussed and the inconsistencies in their argument acknowledged, I wouldn't have doubled down.

I also see you're asking why monsters would be immune to a crossfire mechanic if vehicles aren't, but I don't think anyone said that. Any sort of enemy would be vulnerable to crossfire except I suppose a higher dimensional being. +1 for daemons and c'tan.

Less "crossfire" and more that, to deal with a vehicle, one imagines circling around to strike the weak point while its front is distracted by the heavier guns. Meanwhile, Monsters can apparently just whip around and deflect the attacks coming at them at all angles, even if their front plate/chitin is their strongest.

It's less a "crossfire" mechanic, and more a "facings" mechanic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tyran wrote:
5th edition MC rules were quite limited. Lack of damage table for MCs, lack of Damage as a characteristic. You couldn't suppress them, you couldn't cripple them or flank them. Either you could kill MCs or you couldn't and that made them quite binary in terms of balance. Either they were squishy and easy to kill or hard targets that pretty much shrugged off everything and not a lot of middle ground.

You ended up with a situation where the lascannon that could instakill a Land Raider did as much damage to a Carnifex as a bolter, with no chance of an instant kill, no chance of stunning or disrupting the target. And sure, while the bolter had NO luck against the Land Raider, can we really say it had any meaningful luck against the Carnifex?

A volley of bolters could reliably do 1-2 wounds vs a Carnifex.

This is where some of the newer ideas could be useful in an older edition. Adding multiple wounds to certain weapons is a good idea. So a lascannon could still do its D6 wounds to a large target, so it would be useful against both fleshy wound creatures as well as vehicles.

Perhaps you could also mix in a defensive anti-multiple wound ability to monsters as well. Like "Tough X: This special rule reduces incoming multi-wound attacks by X amount to a minimum of 1". This would give monsters some resistance to say some weaker multi-wound attacks but not the big ones.

Like say a Carnifex could have Tough 2 which would reduce the wounds taken by a multi-wound attack by 2 to a minimum of 1. So a Lascannon with a D6 multiplier would be able to cause between 1 and 4 wounds to a carnifex. This would reduce the effectiveness of some lower end multi-wound attacks. Like say a Bolter could have a wound stat of 2, which would effectively be negated by a Carnifex but useful against lesser multi-wound opponents.

This would also be a way to give special characters some extra durability beyond their normal wounds by capping the amount of wounds a single attack could do. Best part is it would be a very flexible rule you could tweak to suit different creatures with differing amounts.

 Grey Templar wrote:

This is where some of the newer ideas could be useful in an older edition. Adding multiple wounds to certain weapons is a good idea. So a lascannon could still do its D6 wounds to a large target, so it would be useful against both fleshy wound creatures as well as vehicles.

Note that this is what we have currently in 10th edition. So if you basically just handled things the way 10th edition does but also bolted on AV as a vehicles-only mechanic, you'd basically just have what we have now but in a less-elegant fashion. And if you brought back the vehicle damage chart, then we're back to asking why you can blow the arm off a dreadnaught but not a carnifex.

Perhaps you could also mix in a defensive anti-multiple wound ability to monsters as well. Like "Tough X: This special rule reduces incoming multi-wound attacks by X amount to a minimum of 1". This would give monsters some resistance to say some weaker multi-wound attacks but not the big ones.

Like say a Carnifex could have Tough 2 which would reduce the wounds taken by a multi-wound attack by 2 to a minimum of 1. So a Lascannon with a D6 multiplier would be able to cause between 1 and 4 wounds to a carnifex. This would reduce the effectiveness of some lower end multi-wound attacks. Like say a Bolter could have a wound stat of 2, which would effectively be negated by a Carnifex but useful against lesser multi-wound opponents.

This would also be a way to give special characters some extra durability beyond their normal wounds by capping the amount of wounds a single attack could do. Best part is it would be a very flexible rule you could tweak to suit different creatures with differing amounts.

You're basically describing the damage reduction/wound cap mechanics that were popularized in 9th (I think wave serpents may have done it first in 8th), and then subsequently dropped in 10th. If you want big things to last longer before dying, you can just increase their Wounds; no need to deal with the fallout of making bolters D2 and then adding extra rules to walk back that change.