Poll |
 |
|
 |
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. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/16 13:48:50
Subject: Hull Points, yay or nay?
|
 |
Worthiest of Warlock Engineers
|
Baldeagle91 wrote:I think people need to stop seeing glancing hits simply as ineffective hit. Those that hit and don't even pen would be ineffective realistically. Then again glancing armour isn't really a real thing.
Except a glancing hit in 40K has, since 3rd edition, represented a hit that did not penetrate the armour but did manage to hit some external component like a guns barrel, or the running gear or a track. That is what a glancing hit is: A hit that does not penetrate but does manage to strike an external component or hit hard enough to temporarily startle the crew.
And BTW I am all for having a chart that gives penalties to multi wound characters and MC's and GC's as they take wounds.
|
Free from GW's tyranny and the hobby is looking better for it
DR:90-S++G+++M++B++I+Pww205++D++A+++/sWD146R++T(T)D+
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/16 15:17:09
Subject: Hull Points, yay or nay?
|
 |
Storm Trooper with Maglight
|
master of ordinance wrote: Baldeagle91 wrote:I think people need to stop seeing glancing hits simply as ineffective hit. Those that hit and don't even pen would be ineffective realistically. Then again glancing armour isn't really a real thing.
Except a glancing hit in 40K has, since 3rd edition, represented a hit that did not penetrate the armour but did manage to hit some external component like a guns barrel, or the running gear or a track. That is what a glancing hit is: A hit that does not penetrate but does manage to strike an external component or hit hard enough to temporarily startle the crew.
And BTW I am all for having a chart that gives penalties to multi wound characters and MC's and GC's as they take wounds.
In all honesty I think hull points also gave GW a chance to completely revamp the vehicle damage system. But as I said it would require all the vehicle and weapon stats to be completely redone and fat chance of that happening.
I'm not too sure how I feel about the whole glancing to death thing, but then again it depends how much AV 14 is on the field, though it does unfairly effect things that are AV 12 imo.
|
2000
1500
Astral Miliwhat? You're in the Guard son! |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/16 15:29:02
Subject: Hull Points, yay or nay?
|
 |
Revving Ravenwing Biker
England
|
Honestly this is a controversial thing but I think it was mostly a good idea, I'll vote "Yes".
I realize it's caused some issues, but at the same time the previous way caused some problems with how to deal with Vehicles by the sounds of it.
I wouldn't be opposed to Armor saves (or some other kind of save) against Glancing Hits and/or maybe a less useful damage chart used only for Glances? Like 1-3 is no effect, 4 loses 1 HP, 5 is Crew Shaken, 6 is Crew Stunned?
I suppose the unified damage thing giving Vehicles Toughness, Wounds, saves and a special rule wouldn't be necessarily terrible but I'm not 100% sold on it.
|
Don't believe me? It's all in the numbers.
Number 1: That's terror.
Number 2: That's terror.
Dark Angels/Angels of Vengeance combo - ???? - Input wanted! |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/16 15:43:10
Subject: Re:Hull Points, yay or nay?
|
 |
Devestating Grey Knight Dreadknight
|
I think dropping hullpoints and adding a more punishing damage chart than the current incantation (a lot of people have suggested 5th's) would help to give vehicles a unique battlefield role. But, skimmers should also lose their jink ability, and their advantage becomes solely limited to faster movement/better shooting while doing so.
|
Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/16 15:48:59
Subject: Hull Points, yay or nay?
|
 |
Boosting Ultramarine Biker
|
Rhinos are supposed to be ARMOURED transports yet they die quicker than a Land Speeder.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/16 16:16:00
Subject: Hull Points, yay or nay?
|
 |
Ruthless Interrogator
|
I still say that removing the AV system from the game is the way to go. Toughness and armor saves have an inherent advantage over their av brethren.
Only real issue I see with this: Grav goes from glancing on 6s against tanks to wounding on armor saves. Which will generally be at least a 4+
|
Space Marines: Jacks of all trades yet masters of GRAV CANNONS!!!.
My Star Wars Imperial Codex Project: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/641831.page
It has 7 HQs, 2 Troop types with Dedicated Transports, 5 Elite units, 5 Fast Attack units, 6 Heavy Support units, 2 Formations with unique units not in the rest of the codex, and 2 LOW choices.
‘I do not care who knows the truth now, tomorrow, or in ten thousand years. Loyalty is its own reward.’ -Lion El' Jonson |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/16 16:19:52
Subject: Hull Points, yay or nay?
|
 |
Been Around the Block
|
Vaktathi wrote:
Likewise, the addition of HP's and changes to vehicle CC make tanks absurdly easy to kill in CC. 10 krak grenades will, even with below average rolling, kill 95% of vehicles in the game in a single round of combat. The vehicle really has no defense, they're hit on 3's no matter how fast they moved or if they jinked or anything else, don't get Overwatch, and are automatically hit on rear armor. Coupled with the HP system means that it's trivially easy for most basic troops to kill any vehicle in one round of combat, be it a heavy battle tank or a weeny transport, and do so largely without any risk to themselves or any sort of defensive measures possible on the part of the vehicle.
Additionally, with HP's, the dramatic expansion in availability and type of weapons that ignore AV (Haywire, Gauss, Grav, etc) make it often trivially easy to strip HP's from even heavily armored vehicles. An AV14 Leman Russ looks tough, but when it's only got 3 "wounds" and a Skitarii unit with 3 rapid-fire Haywire guns is sitting there hitting it on BS7 and "wounding" it on 2's (with no save), their staying power is rather limited.
At this point, the game really needs to either go back to a 5E style damage table and drop HP's altogether, or drop the damage table altogether and either increase the HP count of most vehicles or give them some sort of a save (though I think the latter would still leave the situation that big heavy anti-tank guns like Vanquisher cannons or Railguns are some of the least effective AT weapons).
The issue there isn't hull points themselves, it's the mechanic that vehicles inherently lack anti-personnel defense, since few of them do in the fluff. There's no reason why ground vehicles like tanks and transports don't have an AP frag belt that the gunner/driver fires on encroaching enemy troops, other than 40K being a miniature hobby that happens to use wargame rules, rather than a wargame that happens to use miniatures.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/09/16 19:43:38
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/16 16:38:04
Subject: Hull Points, yay or nay?
|
 |
Legendary Master of the Chapter
|
DoomShakaLaka wrote:I still say that removing the AV system from the game is the way to go. Toughness and armor saves have an inherent advantage over their av brethren. Only real issue I see with this: Grav goes from glancing on 6s against tanks to wounding on armor saves. Which will generally be at least a 4+ Honestly the way grav weapons fluff wise works. it should of hurt them much harder. though not saying i want grav weapons to be even better (rather see it nerfed or completely changed to do something different) The AV part of AV system i think is fine. meeting a number using STR works fine and is basicly the same thing as hitting a specific number on a chart. it is in fact a lot simpler overall in the sense that you dont need to memorize a chart to figure out if you hurt it or not. the problem is that the after effect of any pens royally feths up a tank and tanks cant take that many hits with no saves of any kind.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/09/16 16:38:57
Unit1126PLL wrote: Scott-S6 wrote:And yet another thread is hijacked for Unit to ask for the same advice, receive the same answers and make the same excuses.
Oh my god I'm becoming martel.
Send help!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/16 17:57:49
Subject: Hull Points, yay or nay?
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
The AV system makes little sense these days when there are wraithknights/riptides/giant MC that work at full efficiency until they are killed, and for some reason vehicles get stunned/shaken/ weapons blown off/immobilized instead of working at full capacity until dead.
makes no sense.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/16 17:59:54
Subject: Hull Points, yay or nay?
|
 |
Rampaging Carnifex
|
Given the proliferation of mid to high strength weapons in recent releases, perhaps a balancing solution could be to increase the AV of all tanks and walkers by 1 (regular vehicles would stay the same). That way, nothing short of an assaultcannon could hurt a Rhino in the front, while things like melta weapons and dedicated anti-tank will still punch a hole fairly easily. And things like Land Raiders won't go down as easily, but since they're so overcosted anyway, this might actually make them usable.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/16 18:00:04
Subject: Hull Points, yay or nay?
|
 |
Revving Ravenwing Biker
England
|
Thinking of it, you could have facing with the Toughness and Saves.
You could have a Tank like T:10/9/8, Sv:2+/3+/4+ for Front/Side/Rear.
Not that it's necessary or wanted, but you could.
|
Don't believe me? It's all in the numbers.
Number 1: That's terror.
Number 2: That's terror.
Dark Angels/Angels of Vengeance combo - ???? - Input wanted! |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/16 18:01:27
Subject: Hull Points, yay or nay?
|
 |
Rampaging Carnifex
|
CrashGordon94 wrote:Thinking of it, you could have facing with the Toughness and Saves.
You could have a Tank like T:10/9/8, Sv:2+/3+/4+ for Front/Side/Rear.
Not that it's necessary or wanted, but you could.
The rules we need but not the rules we want, lol.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/16 18:07:34
Subject: Hull Points, yay or nay?
|
 |
Ruthless Interrogator
|
CrashGordon94 wrote:Thinking of it, you could have facing with the Toughness and Saves.
You could have a Tank like T:10/9/8, Sv:2+/3+/4+ for Front/Side/Rear.
Not that it's necessary or wanted, but you could.
Only problem with this is that squadrons would feth it up with majority toughness rules.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/09/16 18:08:03
Space Marines: Jacks of all trades yet masters of GRAV CANNONS!!!.
My Star Wars Imperial Codex Project: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/641831.page
It has 7 HQs, 2 Troop types with Dedicated Transports, 5 Elite units, 5 Fast Attack units, 6 Heavy Support units, 2 Formations with unique units not in the rest of the codex, and 2 LOW choices.
‘I do not care who knows the truth now, tomorrow, or in ten thousand years. Loyalty is its own reward.’ -Lion El' Jonson |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/16 18:08:50
Subject: Hull Points, yay or nay?
|
 |
Revving Ravenwing Biker
England
|
DoomShakaLaka wrote:
Only problem with this is that squadrons would feth it up with majority toughness rules.
Maybe that could be done differently then.
Then again, that's only if the vehicles in the squadron are facing different directions.
|
Don't believe me? It's all in the numbers.
Number 1: That's terror.
Number 2: That's terror.
Dark Angels/Angels of Vengeance combo - ???? - Input wanted! |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/16 18:11:35
Subject: Re:Hull Points, yay or nay?
|
 |
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar
|
You target individual vehicles in squadrons. You ignore the other vehicles for the purposes of resolving shooting/assault.
|
Thought for the day: Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.
30k Ultramarines: 2000 pts
Bolt Action Germans: ~1200 pts
AOS Stormcast: Just starting.
The Empire : ~60-70 models.
1500 pts
: My Salamanders painting blog 16 Infantry and 2 Vehicles done so far! |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/16 18:41:24
Subject: Hull Points, yay or nay?
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
Moscow, Russia
|
blaktoof wrote:The AV system makes little sense these days when there are wraithknights/riptides/giant MC that work at full efficiency until they are killed, and for some reason vehicles get stunned/shaken/ weapons blown off/immobilized instead of working at full capacity until dead.
makes no sense.
Well the same could be said about infantry (a monstrous creature is just a big infantry unit conceptually). If you wanted to be realistic, you would have infantry suffering injuries and losing effectiveness rather than straight up being removed as casualties.
It would require immense bookkeeping though.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/16 18:48:30
Subject: Hull Points, yay or nay?
|
 |
Worthiest of Warlock Engineers
|
Alcibiades wrote:blaktoof wrote:The AV system makes little sense these days when there are wraithknights/riptides/giant MC that work at full efficiency until they are killed, and for some reason vehicles get stunned/shaken/ weapons blown off/immobilized instead of working at full capacity until dead.
makes no sense.
Well the same could be said about infantry (a monstrous creature is just a big infantry unit conceptually). If you wanted to be realistic, you would have infantry suffering injuries and losing effectiveness rather than straight up being removed as casualties.
It would require immense bookkeeping though.
Not really. When Infantry take hits they usually go down straight away. an MC on the other hand could conceivably lose limbs, take hits to vital muscles and organs, have weapons blown off, etc.
|
Free from GW's tyranny and the hobby is looking better for it
DR:90-S++G+++M++B++I+Pww205++D++A+++/sWD146R++T(T)D+
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/16 20:19:48
Subject: Hull Points, yay or nay?
|
 |
Dakka Veteran
Eastern Washington
|
Theres a lot of good suggestions for vehicle rules in this thread. Occasional flamey crap aside. I really, REALLY hope GW is reading this.
|
4,000 Word Bearers 1,500 |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/16 23:00:51
Subject: Hull Points, yay or nay?
|
 |
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter
Seattle
|
Alcibiades wrote:blaktoof wrote:The AV system makes little sense these days when there are wraithknights/riptides/giant MC that work at full efficiency until they are killed, and for some reason vehicles get stunned/shaken/ weapons blown off/immobilized instead of working at full capacity until dead.
makes no sense.
Well the same could be said about infantry (a monstrous creature is just a big infantry unit conceptually). If you wanted to be realistic, you would have infantry suffering injuries and losing effectiveness rather than straight up being removed as casualties.
It would require immense bookkeeping though.
You already are with casualty-removal though. Casualties are reducing shots, possibly reducing Majority Stats (for mixed-model units), removing Special Weapons and other Wargear-based effects, so forth and so on.
Theres a lot of good suggestions for vehicle rules in this thread. Occasional flamey crap aside. I really, REALLY hope GW is reading this.
Oh, you sweet, summer child...
|
It is best to be a pessimist. You are usually right and, when you're wrong, you're pleasantly surprised. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/17 01:50:13
Subject: Hull Points, yay or nay?
|
 |
Ruthless Interrogator
|
Red Marine wrote:Theres a lot of good suggestions for vehicle rules in this thread. Occasional flamey crap aside. I really, REALLY hope GW is reading this.
That's highly unlikely.
As in its probably more likely for me to win the lottery while being attacked by a shark while simultaneously being struck by lightnin...twice.
Besides everyone knows GW execs don't know how to read.
|
Space Marines: Jacks of all trades yet masters of GRAV CANNONS!!!.
My Star Wars Imperial Codex Project: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/641831.page
It has 7 HQs, 2 Troop types with Dedicated Transports, 5 Elite units, 5 Fast Attack units, 6 Heavy Support units, 2 Formations with unique units not in the rest of the codex, and 2 LOW choices.
‘I do not care who knows the truth now, tomorrow, or in ten thousand years. Loyalty is its own reward.’ -Lion El' Jonson |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/17 01:58:57
Subject: Hull Points, yay or nay?
|
 |
Ultramarine Land Raider Pilot on Cruise Control
|
Red Marine wrote:Theres a lot of good suggestions for vehicle rules in this thread. Occasional flamey crap aside. I really, REALLY hope GW is reading this.
Yeah, in my experience, if anyone at GW is reading this, they're keeping a list of things NOT to fix. Actual changes in 8th edition, whenever it comes, will be determined by a random rule generator, as per tradition.
Rule that worked fine? BROKEN and CLUNKY. Unit type that didn't need help? SUDDENLY OVERPOWERED. Rule everyone hated? HERE TO STAY. Rule that didn't make sense? NOW EVEN WORSE.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/09/17 02:00:36
Battlefleet Gothic ships and markers at my store, GrimDarkBits:
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/17 04:52:06
Subject: Hull Points, yay or nay?
|
 |
Imperial Guard Landspeeder Pilot
On moon miranda.
|
CalgarsPimpHand wrote: Red Marine wrote:Theres a lot of good suggestions for vehicle rules in this thread. Occasional flamey crap aside. I really, REALLY hope GW is reading this.
Yeah, in my experience, if anyone at GW is reading this, they're keeping a list of things NOT to fix. Actual changes in 8th edition, whenever it comes, will be determined by a random rule generator, as per tradition.
Rule that worked fine? BROKEN and CLUNKY. Unit type that didn't need help? SUDDENLY OVERPOWERED. Rule everyone hated? HERE TO STAY. Rule that didn't make sense? NOW EVEN WORSE.
As is tradition.
|
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights!
The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/17 10:51:50
Subject: Hull Points, yay or nay?
|
 |
Khorne Chosen Marine Riding a Juggernaut
|
The problem is not the amount of hull points etc a vehicle as.
The problem is that once you don't any left the vehicle is wrecked, while in the fluff you read stuff about IoM vehicles badly crippled that still goes on to destroy their targets because of the machine spirit.
Hull points should stay the same, BUT, once you fall at 0 HP's, the vehicle isn't automatically wrecked, it still continues to work like normal, except that from this point on, when the vehicle is hit by a glancing or penetrating hit, you roll on the damage chart.
Hull points are just that, it represent the integrity of the Hull, you can have a vehicle completly stripped of his hull, or having it looking like swiss cheese, but that doesn't mean that the mecanics doesn't work, just that the vehicle doesn't have any protection for those mecanics.
Gives more "lifespan" to vehicles this way, without making them industructible. Automatically Appended Next Post: blaktoof wrote:The AV system makes little sense these days when there are wraithknights/riptides/giant MC that work at full efficiency until they are killed, and for some reason vehicles get stunned/shaken/ weapons blown off/immobilized instead of working at full capacity until dead.
makes no sense.
Could use the Age of Sigmar systeme for huge monsters, where the less Wounds a monster have during the game, the less effective it becomes.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/09/17 10:54:21
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/17 11:31:46
Subject: Hull Points, yay or nay?
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
Moscow, Russia
|
master of ordinance wrote:
Not really. When Infantry take hits they usually go down straight away. an MC on the other hand could conceivably lose limbs, take hits to vital muscles and organs, have weapons blown off, etc.
That's exactly what happens to infantry. Infantry do not in reality go down straight away. They get injured. They don't get shot by a bullet and either fall down or go on as if nothing happened.
Automatically Appended Next Post: A monstrous creature is not in essence different from an infantryman. It's just bigger.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/09/17 11:42:01
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/17 11:42:16
Subject: Hull Points, yay or nay?
|
 |
Hallowed Canoness
|
Weapons in 40k are a lot more lethal than in 2k.
|

"That time I only loaded the cannon with powder. Next time, I will fill it with jewels and diamonds and they will cut you to shrebbons!" - Nogbad the Bad. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/17 11:49:20
Subject: Hull Points, yay or nay?
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
Moscow, Russia
|
Not the swords and autoguns, and arguably not the lasguns. Definetly not the bayonettes. And apparently not for multiwound models, which literally cannot be killed by one shot of something.
Anyway that's irrelevant; the point is that people do not get hit and then either die or ignore it. They get hurt.
Logically, REALISTICALLY[/b], if we have rules for a carifex getting its limb cut off by a reaper chainsword, we should have them for Guardsmen having their limbs cut off by choppas.
I am not recommending this rule, which would be really bad. Just pointing out that the wounds/hull points mechanic is unrealistic for everything[b], not just vehicles.
|
|
 |
 |
|