Which units (for all races) would you say qualifies for a Monstrous Creature classification?

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.

**vipoid**

Grey Templar wrote:
What would really be best is to change all vehicles to use the Toughness/Armor Save system instead of the Armor Value system. Give vehicles different toughness values and armor saves depending on the arc you are in.

Do we even need to keep vehicle facings?

It's not like anything else in the game takes facing into account.

**Grey Templar**

I think it would be a good idea to keep that part.

**casvalremdeikun**

I would rather they just kept the vehicle rules the same, but game an armor save based on the Armor Value. AV14 would get a 2+, AV13 a 3+, AV12 a 4+, AV11 a 5+, and AV10 a 6+. Keep the hull point system the same.

**Selym**

casvalremdeikun wrote:
I would rather they just kept the vehicle rules the same, but game an armor save based on the Armor Value. AV14 would get a 2+, AV13 a 3+, AV12 a 4+, AV11 a 5+, and AV10 a 6+. Keep the hull point system the same.

That would be helpful, I have to admit.

**vipoid**

casvalremdeikun wrote:
I would rather they just kept the vehicle rules the same, but game an armor save based on the Armor Value. AV14 would get a 2+, AV13 a 3+, AV12 a 4+, AV11 a 5+, and AV10 a 6+. Keep the hull point system the same.

If we're doing that, perhaps we should also change Jink so that it's based on armour value.

e.g. AV10 4+ Jink, Av11-12 5+ Jink, AV13-14 6+ Jink

**Vaktathi**

Jink has so many issues that need to be fixed...

*shudder*

casvalremdeikun wrote:
I would rather they just kept the vehicle rules the same, but game an armor save based on the Armor Value. AV14 would get a 2+, AV13 a 3+, AV12 a 4+, AV11 a 5+, and AV10 a 6+. Keep the hull point system the same.

My problem with this particular incarnation is that for each AV class, anything with enough S to hurt it will typically ignore the save. For example, most weapons capable of hurting AV12 (or at least anything potentially capable of penetrating) is almost always going to have at least AP4, and likewise for AV14, it will *usually* have AP2 (e.g. Lascannons, Meltaguns, Railguns), etc.

I still really think going back to the 5E damage table is probably the best thing. One can look at vehicles under that system as basically W1 models with AV corresponding to a T value, but with the caveat that any roll that was only on the minimum possible to hurt them could not kill them, and anything that exceeded the minimum roll to hurt them they got a 3++ against, but if they passe it they were instead disabled or crippled in some way. The damage table effectively *was* the save.

**Co'tor Shas**

Yeah, I thought 5th worked rather well. And high AP (1+2) were modifiers to the table, making high strength-low AP weapons the things for killing vehicles, instead of med strength, high ROF weapons like it is now.

TBH, my dream rulebook would a combo of 5th and 6th, just take the good parts from each.

**vipoid**

Going back to the 5th edition damage tables would definitely be my second choice (after changing vehicles to toughness and saves).

Although, wouldn't that make super heavies invincible - since they'd be ignoring the entire damage table?

**Co'tor Shas**

Nah, back in 5th they had their own damage table, and structure points. just go back to that.

**vipoid**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
Nah, back in 5th they had their own damage table, and structure points. just go back to that.

I guess back in 5th they were also confined to Apocalypse. I miss those days.

**Vaktathi**

I'd be largely fine with SH's still ignoring most of the damage table except Structure Point stripping results (destroyed/explodes), but there definitely needs to be more restrictions put on them (along with GC's), and some serious rebalancing of SH/GC points costs.

**casvalremdeikun**

Vaktathi wrote:
Jink has so many issues that need to be fixed...

*shudder*

casvalremdeikun wrote:
I would rather they just kept the vehicle rules the same, but game an armor save based on the Armor Value. AV14 would get a 2+, AV13 a 3+, AV12 a 4+, AV11 a 5+, and AV10 a 6+. Keep the hull point system the same.
My problem with this particular incarnation is that for each AV class, anything with enough S to hurt it will typically ignore the save. For example, most weapons capable of hurting AV12 (or at least anything potentially capable of penetrating) is almost always going to have at least AP4, and likewise for AV14, it will *usually* have AP2 (e.g. Lascannons, Meltaguns, Railguns), etc.

Yeah, I can't really think of a good way to deal with that part. Making it an Invulnerable Save would probably be way too powerful. I suppose if AV10 and AV11 had a 6++ save, AV12 and AV13 had a 5++ save, and AV14 had a 4++ save it might work, though that is still pretty potent. AP1 and AP2 would still serve just as much purpose against vehicles as they do now.

I really think MCs and GCs need to be unable to benefit from a Cover Save(really, your Wraithknight has his toe in a ruin therefore he is Obscured?!) and shooting attacks should be done at +1BS against them. They are a lot bigger, they should be much easier to hit.

**Co'tor Shas**

Well, I agree with them not getting cover (aside from special abilites/being physicaly obscured by cover i.e. behind a large building), but I'd draw the line at the +1BS, it's really unnecessary, and just creates another thing to balance around.

**casvalremdeikun**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
Well, I agree with them not getting cover (aside from special abilites/being physicaly obscured by cover i.e. behind a large building), but I'd draw the line at the +1BS, it's really unnecessary, and just creates another thing to balance around.

Ideally points would make for a good balancing point, but look at how that turned out. Perhaps just +1 BS against GCs and SHs. But really, the inability to benefit from cover would work well enough for me.

And someone mentioned Jink upthread. I think they need to bring back the movement requirement to Jink. It should still require Snap Shots too.

**Co'tor Shas**

At least 6" would make sense, or maybe it's a 6+ at 0"-6", 5+ at 6"-12", 4+ at 12"-24". Something like that in any case.

**vipoid**

Well, while we're on the subject of Jink, I'll throw out that Flyers should have 4+ Jink all the time (maybe upgraded to 3+ if they move over a certain distance), but shots against them should be at normal BS.