Toughness vs Armor Value

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.

**SickSix**

With the release of the Munitorum Armored Containers, GW has just jumped the shark in my mind. First offense was the Riptide, a mech suit with a pilot, made a monstrous creature. Dreads everywhere were like 'WTF?'.

The nonsense continued until now, a completely inanimate object has been giving a toughness rating. A freaking metal box has a toughness value, making it more resilent than a SM Dreadnought.

Either it's just more GW stupidity in not giving one crap about their rules, OR its a sign of things to come. The latter offering the only silver lining here. Is it possible that in 8th edition there will no longer be armor values? That would be preferable to the current nonsensical mess we have now. At least that would simplify the game.

I sent an email to GW. I know I won't get a meaningful response but just maybe it could spark a change. With the new attitude towards community relations, maybe just maybe we can shape 8th edition or future releases.

My email below in case you want to send something similar.

Spoiler:

**Eldarain**

I would be very happy if everything went to the toughness system with an AoS style declining performance as damage is taken for vehicles and MCs.

**Roknar**

Say what? Oo
That HAS to be a sign of change. Nobody in their right mind would give a box a toughness value rather than an armour value.

**Bobthehero**

Artillery units have a T value, too

**Backspacehacker**

This really just all goes back to the fact that Vehicles in the 7th are just gimped as all hell, HP are the bane of a vehicle since they are wounds that cant be saved, unlike MC

**Roknar**

Bobthehero wrote:
Artillery units have a T value, too

At least those are actually fired by infantry. Though I always thought T7 and 3+ is a bit much.

**Experiment 626**

I honestly wouldn't mind seeing everything simply move to a single Toughness + Armour Save system really...

Just as long we also get a sensible accompanying rule such as 'Armoured Might' for anything that is a proper vehicle, which would then limit the effectiveness of things like Poison & small arms.

Otherwise, we'll end up probably seeing even stupider gak such as Lasguns gunning down Rhinos & the like.

**Huron black heart**

Another bizarre rule from GW.
I work in the container industry, we had a an empty tank container come to us from Afghanistan, it had been shot at by an AK47 (we think) and the bullets had gone straight through. Luckily for the driver the tank was loaded with fuel, had it been empty the fumes from the fuel would have ignited and blown up. I know they are sold as armoured containers but still.
Not that Gw asked for my advice or opinion lol

**Luke_Prowler**

Experiment 626 wrote:
I honestly wouldn't mind seeing everything simply move to a single Toughness + Armour Save system really...

Just as long we also get a sensible accompanying rule such as 'Armoured Might' for anything that is a proper vehicle, which would then limit the effectiveness of things like Poison & small arms.

Otherwise, we'll end up probably seeing even stupider gak such as Lasguns gunning down Rhinos & the like.

On the otherhand, doesn't changing the rules to be more streamlined, then adding a cascade of rules on top of it which make the initial foundation rules all but vestigial sort of defeat the point? Just in the toughness example, isn't having toughness for preventing ID but then ignoring it for low damage weapon and weapons designed to bypass it a serious case of Having Your Cake and Eating It Too?

Although more on topic: yes, the container should have had AV, the lack there off is more proof that Games Workshop REALLY don't care about consistency.

**Roknar**

I think it would help more than it breaks things. Just being a vehicle could give you a bunch of immunities and replacing hull points with proper wounds would help too imho. Not sure how they would handle weapons breaking and such though. Perhaps every X wounds? And have something akin to grounding tests for stunned/shaken.

I'm not opposed to the idea if they can pull it off. Something I'm skeptical of.

**Grief**

Lols! You are not supposed to understand GW. Why they do what they do. You are just supposed to BUY from them. YOU, the devoted loyal customer,is supposed OPEN your WALLET and blindly give GW your money!

Dont ask question that your mind can never understand Tzeentch and his grand plan. YOU are just a MINDLESS pawn!!!

**ClassicCarraway**

In a way it sort of makes sense, given that Artillery has a Toughness value. Being boxes, they don't move, they don't have crew, and they don't shoot unless you pay for the stormbolter, so that pretty much ignores all but the explodes result on the damage table. I guess they didn't want empty boxes to explode and kill models.

**SickSix**

ClassicCarraway wrote:
In a way it sort of makes sense, given that Artillery has a Toughness value. Being boxes, they don't move, they don't have crew, and they don't shoot unless you pay for the stormbolter, so that pretty much ignores all but the explodes result on the damage table. I guess they didn't want empty boxes to explode and kill models.

You make good points. I would think 'wrecked' would be a valid result as well. But even so it would have hull points that could be glanced away like any other vehicle until it was destroyed. Just like the 'invincible' Land Raider formation can still be glanced to death using HP mechanic.

But really we can always fall back on the riptide vs dread argument.

**Hunam0001**

I find it funny that instant death from things like Force, and Decapitating Strike work on cargo containers.

**Roknar**

Hunam0001 wrote:
I find it funny that instant death from things like Force, and Decapitating Strike work on cargo containers.

lawl

**Grief**

oh wow the rules for this game is so out of wack but i already knew that back in 2008.

**adamsouza**

With toughness and wounds you remove the model when it's destroyed.

**edwardmyst**

I have always suspected a lot of GW rules follow the Blizzard PvP stuff. A designer wants to use X strategy, or model or whatever, so designs it and gives it the most favorable rules he can, so he can dominate a table. The overall theory for GW is balance, but individuals get involved who have self-interest...and you get boxes with toughness and wounds, because the designer who wants to use them knows the vehicle rules as written stink. Riptide seems to follow same thinking. The walkers for the Skitarrii fall under this for me. The guy really wanted the army to have those walkers, but walkers get destroyed under these rules...so give them a unit invuln save which basically adds HP's.

**TheCustomLime**

I would like to see all units get toughness myself. I think the game should shed some of it's complexity if the designers want to keep upping the amount of crap that goes on the table.

**koooaei**

Do you get a blood tithe point for killing a container?

Spoiler:

**G00fySmiley**

I would say it means GW is play testing the idea of T value instead of armor value.

that or somebody found a way to use a process similar to what the elder do with their wraith constructs and somehow put a servitors soal into each shipping container for god only knows what reason.. possibly to have a witness in the event of theft?