MCs becoming weaker as they get wounded

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.

**Arson Fire**

Slayer le boucher wrote:

MC's strength is not only the immunity to damage, its a corpus of rules that surrounds them, Smash, can fire any weapons no matter they're movement, can Overwatch/assault/defend itselfs, can benefit from rules such has FnP, IWND and others that affects non-vehicles models.

You might want to check those.
They can fire no more than two weapons.
IWND works on vehicles too.

**TheLumberJack**

Slayer le boucher wrote:
If they simply add the approriate "datacard" thats a plastified piece of paper or plastic to have on hand to keep track, its a good idea.

On the subject of giving vehicles T and saves, its the other way around, Vehicles shouldn't become MC's, its MC's that should be affected like vehicles.

Even if you give T and saves to vehicles it wouldn't change much to the problem that MC's ar far more dangerous and reliable.

Even if vehicles becomes immune to dmages like MC's and have a rule that says they are immune to poison etc, they still be subpar compared to MC's.

MC's strength is not only the immunity to damage, its a corpus of rules that surrounds them, Smash, can fire any weapons no matter they're movement, can Overwatch/assault/defend itselfs, can benefit from rules such has FnP, IWND and others that affects non-vehicles models.

There is a lot of things where a MC is ( in most cases, since not all MC's are equal) just plain better at it then vehicles, that giving vehicles T and saves is just a band aid on a wooden leg.

The AoS solution is a more sensible one, just need to get it tight and simple.

I'm not saying that MC should be affected like vehicles, I just think a clear distinction between vehicles and MC is needed. Why are Riptides MC and a dreadnought a "vehicle"? Things like a rhino shouldn't need FnP, IWND because they are vehicles. It's just where the line is drawn that's the problem

**Ynneadwraith**

Complicate and add rules! That's the way to make a successful tabletop game, no?

I love having to remember three different stat-lines for a single unit!

It's a neat idea, but practically it adds excess bulk to the game. MCs and vehicles should have different rules, because they're two distinct types of thing.

**Vector Strike**

Just give MCs something similar to vehicle damage table

**XT-1984**

I thought they only gave Monsters in AoS those multiple profiles because they were made in a time before anything had a points value. Back when they tried to use Wounds or model count to balance armies.

A monsters effectiveness would lower as it took wounds, like a unit would.

If they did add this extra level of detail to 40k something would have to go. Most people agree the 40k rules system is quite convoluted enough as it is.

Personally I think all rules should become more streamlined in the new edition. Not more complicated.

**koooaei**

Vector Strike wrote:
Just give MCs something similar to vehicle damage table

ID on a 6.

**Jackal**

So a land raider that's been glanced down to its last HP has suffered no ill effects except being nearly dead.
Should we start giving modifiers on the damage table to reflect that?

The idea of a damage table (posted previously) is good, but wrecks MC's too easily.
Melta weapons bypass any armour already, then on a 5+ would instant kill any MC in the game.

So how would people propose this works for armies like Orks?
Ap 1 and 2 weapons are near non existent for them so they would still not be able to make use from this.
While other armies would benefit a great deal instead.

Snipers would love this table too, more so the vindicare and illic.
Hell, the culexus could shoot them off the table with more ease than normal.

The state of the game as it stands is bad as there are too many flaws.
Trying to change something now would only exacerbate the situation for certain armies.
Top tier armies already don't use MC'S, but they do have plenty of AP 1 and 2 shooting, helping them even more.

**Skinnereal**

Drop a couple of stats when they are below half-wounds.
Maybe trigger Rage or something to counter it.

**Martel732**

Jackal wrote:
So a land raider that's been glanced down to its last HP has suffered no ill effects except being nearly dead.
Should we start giving modifiers on the damage table to reflect that?

The idea of a damage table (posted previously) is good, but wrecks MC's too easily.
Melta weapons bypass any armour already, then on a 5+ would instant kill any MC in the game.

So how would people propose this works for armies like Orks?
Ap 1 and 2 weapons are near non existent for them so they would still not be able to make use from this.
While other armies would benefit a great deal instead.

Snipers would love this table too, more so the vindicare and illic.
Hell, the culexus could shoot them off the table with more ease than normal.

The state of the game as it stands is bad as there are too many flaws.
Trying to change something now would only exacerbate the situation for certain armies.
Top tier armies already don't use MC'S, but they do have plenty of AP 1 and 2 shooting, helping them even more.

There does, however, need to be a way for low ROF weapons to be meaningful. There may be no way to do this in the current system.

**MarsNZ**

Roll on this chart for every wound MC takes.

1-3 MC is stunned and can only snap fire weapons, cannot charge, nor change flying modes this turn
4 MC is shaken and does nothing this turn
5 MC suffers a broken leg/wing and can no longer move
6 MC suffers a broken arm and can no longer use any weapons.
7+ Major organ ruptured, MC removed from play.

For every point the attacks S value beats the targets T value add +1 to your roll. -1 for every point the T value exceeds the S value. Wound inflicted by the MC itself (in the case of Riptide overcharge) count as S equal to T.

I play Guard so come@mebro with your unease at your pretty toy being stunlocked for the whole game.

**Kaiyanwang**

MarsNZ wrote:
Roll on this chart for every wound MC takes.

1-3 MC is stunned and can only snap fire weapons, cannot charge, nor change flying modes this turn
4 MC is shaken and does nothing this turn
5 MC suffers a broken leg/wing and can no longer move
6 MC suffers a broken arm and can no longer use any weapons.
7+ Major organ ruptured, MC removed from play.

For every point the attacks S value beats the targets T value add +1 to your roll. -1 for every point the T value exceeds the S value. Wound inflicted by the MC itself (in the case of Riptide overcharge) count as S equal to T.

I play Guard so come@mebro with your unease at your pretty toy being stunlocked for the whole game.

I laughed out loud.

Also, the existence of this table AND HP for vehicles is one of the most glaring examples of how much of a joke the ruleset is, especially from 6th onward.

**Nurglitch**

Something that the AoS 'model' of handling large models does is make them act more like units of infantry and vehicles, in that they can have their capabilities reduced and be interdicted without being destroyed. Expands the range of live tactical options open to players. It's a good thing.

**koooaei**

What about multi-wound models like wuffen or characters?

**Vash108**

Have Monstrous Creature: Mechanical, which uses AV and Hull Points. Immune to poison, but can lose weapons on Pens.

Monstrous Creature: Biological, not immune to Poison, uses Wounds.

Then you can throw Dreads in the the Mechanical side, while also giving them a boost. I know there would be more to each side but I am at work and can't spend to much time on it.

**Tycho**

I like the idea of MC's becoming weaker as they take wounds, but in the game's current incarnation? Absolutely not. No thank you. The last thing I want is MORE charts, MORE rules and MORE book keeping. Now, if 8th Ed ends up being the streamlined ruleset the rumors are promising, then yes, that could be cool. That said, rather than a chart or something that varies depending on what's happening, I'd almost rather just see a basic universal rule. Something like (and I've put no thought into this - it's just an example):

-1 wds LD drops by 1
-2 wds LD check required -1 attack
etc etc ...

It's a cool idea that would go a long way towards balancing things like Wraith Knights, but I'd almost rather continue to deal with them "as-is" than add more complexity to the current system.

**Galef**

Tycho wrote:
I like the idea of MC's becoming weaker as they take wounds, but in the game's current incarnation? Absolutely not. No thank you. The last thing I want is MORE charts, MORE rules and MORE book keeping. Now, if 8th Ed ends up being the streamlined ruleset the rumors are promising, then yes, that could be cool. That said, rather than a chart or something that varies depending on what's happening, I'd almost rather just see a basic universal rule. Something like (and I've put no thought into this - it's just an example):

-1 wds LD drops by 1
-2 wds LD check required -1 attack
etc etc ...

It's a cool idea that would go a long way towards balancing things like Wraith Knights, but I'd almost rather continue to deal with them "as-is" than add more complexity to the current system.

When I posted this thread, the assumption that I was making is that 8th edition will be simplified. And yes, the idea is that there is no chart, but flat effects that happen as the MC takes wounds. Even in the current system that isn't any more bookkeeping since you have to track suffered wounds already.
I like the idea that the MC gains Rage and/or Rampage it is below half wounds

You could even have a similar effect for vehicles: no chart, just effects that happen as HPs get lost. You could even keep Glances/Pens in which Glances not do HPs, but rather causes Shaken or Stunned and Pens do HPs. 1st Pen destroys a random weapon, 2nd immobilized (which would need to be half movement at this point) and so on. My example is not perfect, but you get the idea. AP1 weapons could up the result by 1, so if a Glance causes shaken, an AP1 Glance causes Stunned.

-

**Xenomancers**

I don't think the solution to vehicle MC disparity is nerfing MC. We should be buffing vehicles. Without making vehicals too tough - we need to give them (I think better than MC level) survivability. Plus buff their firepower to make up for the fact that they have no assault presence for the most part.

If MC remain the same I think these buffs for vehicals would make them close to equal.

Give vehicals independent fire of weapon systems.
Allow Vehicles to fire all weapons regardless of movement.
Give all vehicals +1-2 HP. As well as a 4+ inv save against glancing hits. (In gerenal these changes should effect everything with an armor value...yes even super heavies).

**Slayer-Fan123**

Jackal wrote:
So a land raider that's been glanced down to its last HP has suffered no ill effects except being nearly dead.
Should we start giving modifiers on the damage table to reflect that?

The idea of a damage table (posted previously) is good, but wrecks MC's too easily.
Melta weapons bypass any armour already, then on a 5+ would instant kill any MC in the game.

So how would people propose this works for armies like Orks?
Ap 1 and 2 weapons are near non existent for them so they would still not be able to make use from this.
While other armies would benefit a great deal instead.

Snipers would love this table too, more so the vindicare and illic.
Hell, the culexus could shoot them off the table with more ease than normal.

The state of the game as it stands is bad as there are too many flaws.
Trying to change something now would only exacerbate the situation for certain armies.
Top tier armies already don't use MC'S, but they do have plenty of AP 1 and 2 shooting, helping them even more.

Seeing as Land Raiders are Garbage Supreme they need a price cut.

**Martel732**

Land Raider is 150 pts tops atm. I'd balk even then, honestly.

**Kanluwen**

koooaei wrote:
What about multi-wound models like wuffen or characters?

What about them?

They're Infantry, not Monsters.

The way Age of Sigmar works Monsters is pretty simple IMO. Certain characteristics(The number of attacks, To Wound roll, and the Damage or Rend value for certain weapons and sometimes the Movement or some of the Save values) are affected by the number of Wounds suffered. Not all Monsters are affected the same.

The table is broken up into increments of two, capping out at 10+.

To use the example of Spirit of Durthu.
He has 6 attacks with his Verdant Blast(Missile Weapon), a damage value of 6 for his Guardian Sword, and a To Wound roll of 2+ for his Massive Impaling Talons when he has suffered 0-2 Wounds.
When he suffers 5-7 Wounds? Those values become 4, D6, and 3+
10+ Wounds? 2, D3, and 4+.

The value that goes down every increment is usually the Missile Weapon attack.

**Kaiyanwang**

hey guys

hey

listen

what if

listen

what if, instead of dumbed down 8th edition and formation spam, we demanded from professional designers units reasonably costed for their price, with rules functional without recurring to amateurish hot-fixes and formations?

what if we refused to pay these hack frauds for their damage until they fix it, instead of buying a dumbed down version of a game those hacks were not able to fix sitting down, doing actual math, and playtesting?

too revolutionary?

**Jackal**

Need to remember though that wounds are alot higher in AoS.

So knocking off 2-3 wounds does very little.
The same in 40k means a half dead MC already.
So hitting those brackets will be very easy.

Essentially you could drop 2 wounds off one and then ignore it if the same principle was used.

**Galef**

Jackal wrote:
Need to remember though that wounds are alot higher in AoS.

So knocking off 2-3 wounds does very little.
The same in 40k means a half dead MC already.
So hitting those brackets will be very easy.

Essentially you could drop 2 wounds off one and then ignore it if the same principle was used.

But that is why the effects need to be noticeable, but overall not that big. -1WS often has little effect, but is noticeable for certain "thresholds" for example. It can mean a WS5 MC now hits on 4+ instead of 3+, or that a WS4 MC now gets hit on 3+. -1Str is another good one. Most MCs wound most units on 2+, so -1Str isn't overly huge (though it can be). Once you hit 3 wounds, most MCs are about dead anyway so at this point you can actually give bonuses, like Rampage or Rage so the MC can go out in a blazer of glory if needed, or even reduce movement by, say 2-3".

-

**Jackal**

Then all MC's would need a recost to take into account the new wound brackets aswell.

Don't get me wrong, I quite like the idea.
But I think it's a very fine line between balancing them and making them worthless.

**Captain Joystick**

Kanluwen wrote:
koooaei wrote:
What about multi-wound models like wuffen or characters?

What about them?

They're Infantry, not Monsters.

The way Age of Sigmar works Monsters is pretty simple IMO. Certain characteristics(The number of attacks, To Wound roll, and the Damage or Rend value for certain weapons and sometimes the Movement or some of the Save values) are affected by the number of Wounds suffered. Not all Monsters are affected the same.

Orion's a good example of a unit that straddles the line. He's technically classified as a Behemoth but doesn't get weaker while suffering wounds. It's offset by the fact that he has only 8 wounds behind a 4+ save and so tends to die once he becomes a priority target, but as long as he's alive he is as killy as he always was.

**pumaman1**

Martel732 wrote:
If you think marines have gotten buffs, maybe you should check out riptide and wraithknight. Also, marines have been hit with heinous indirect nerfs in the form of xeno firepower that makes a mockery of T4 3+. It's so bad the fluff has zero credibility.

Because fluff that says pulse rifles easily blow holes all the way through rhinos, and dropping space marines easily should be ignored instead? fluff v fluff cannot be a consideration, otherwise 1 side would go first, and the scale of all weapons would end the game turn 1 every time.

**Martel732**

pumaman1 wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
If you think marines have gotten buffs, maybe you should check out riptide and wraithknight. Also, marines have been hit with heinous indirect nerfs in the form of xeno firepower that makes a mockery of T4 3+. It's so bad the fluff has zero credibility.

Because fluff that says pulse rifles easily blow holes all the way through rhinos, and dropping space marines easily should be ignored instead? fluff v fluff cannot be a consideration, otherwise 1 side would go first, and the scale of all weapons would end the game turn 1 every time.

No. I'm saying the fluff is a non-consideration because of how the table top plays out.

**Kanluwen**

pumaman1 wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
If you think marines have gotten buffs, maybe you should check out riptide and wraithknight. Also, marines have been hit with heinous indirect nerfs in the form of xeno firepower that makes a mockery of T4 3+. It's so bad the fluff has zero credibility.

Because fluff that says pulse rifles easily blow holes all the way through rhinos, and dropping space marines easily should be ignored instead? fluff v fluff cannot be a consideration, otherwise 1 side would go first, and the scale of all weapons would end the game turn 1 every time.

Cite a source with Pulse Rifles blowing holes through Rhinos please. Pages and books would be helpful.

Because the only thing that, Tau wise, has been mentioned to blow holes through vehicles has been rail weaponry.

**pumaman1**

Kanluwen wrote:
pumaman1 wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
If you think marines have gotten buffs, maybe you should check out riptide and wraithknight. Also, marines have been hit with heinous indirect nerfs in the form of xeno firepower that makes a mockery of T4 3+. It's so bad the fluff has zero credibility.

Because fluff that says pulse rifles easily blow holes all the way through rhinos, and dropping space marines easily should be ignored instead? fluff v fluff cannot be a consideration, otherwise 1 side would go first, and the scale of all weapons would end the game turn 1 every time.

Cite a source with Pulse Rifles blowing holes through Rhinos please. Pages and books would be helpful.

Because the only thing that, Tau wise, has been mentioned to blow holes through vehicles has been rail weaponry.

Mont'ka and Kayon fluff, fire warriors fire at rhinos leaving them riddled with homes, and the troops inside dead. Not at home, so page numbers are not available.

On dakka, I've read 1 persons idea that all the codecies are propaganda by their corresponding faction, that overstates the efficacy of their items. It's a fun bit of head cannon that makes for some fluff repair between codex descriptions.

Rail rifles have been described blowing holes through titan level vehicles. not only "conventional"

**Davor**

Kaiyanwang wrote:hey guys

hey

listen

what if

listen

what if, instead of dumbed down 8th edition and formation spam, we demanded from professional designers units reasonably costed for their price, with rules functional without recurring to amateurish hot-fixes and formations?

what if we refused to pay these hack frauds for their damage until they fix it, instead of buying a dumbed down version of a game those hacks were not able to fix sitting down, doing actual math, and playtesting?

too revolutionary?

What are you talking about? We have been voting with our wallets. You can see it worked and change is happening. While 2016 is the most I spent on GW products in all of last 5 or so years combined, it will come to a screeching halt if 8th edition is just same old same old, or amateurish joke rules again. I am sure a lot of people will do the same. Right now GW has been changing giving us savings where before they wouldn't, so I will accept the change and started buying. 8th edition will be the real test if GW has changed or not. If it's same old same old, wallets will be closed again and people will be voting with closed wallets again.

GW wouldn't have changed if things didn't get dire. GW is doing two steps forward and one step back, but the thing is, they are moving forward now. So come next summer the true GW will be revealed.