Switch Theme:

So, now it's been going for a while, what do you prefer? Armour facings or wounds?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
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.




Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




I really did enjoy armor facings, but as many here have already said there were absolutely issues with the system.

Namely:

- Arguments on which facings where which
- MC vs Vehicle Discrepancies
- OHKs on vehicles
- Haywire, lance, grav, and D weapons invalidating durability
- TLoS was a pain to use with multiple weapon sponsons

And the new system got rid of all of that besides haywire but feels like it just has far less depth. I really get annoyed when a tailpipe spots one of my models and suddenly it get hits with the entire barrage from the vehicle. It just doesn't sit well with me

I'd wish they mix the systems slightly, retain the wounds/save style of this edition but give all MC/Vehicles Front/Rear Arcs (much easier to bisect then cut in 4 ways) make the rear arc have some benefit for being shot at. Maybe +1 Damage, -1 Armor, or -1 Toughness. Maybe make it dependent on the vehicle/MC your attacking

Further, you attach weapons to either Front, Back, or Both Arcs. and require the target to being in that arc.

Also, a sidenote but please give tracked vehicles a bonus to WS when they charge to represent Tank-shock rules

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/11/25 21:59:38


 
   
Made in us
Ollanius Pius - Savior of the Emperor






Gathering the Informations.

 sfshilo wrote:
I think they need to just add in a rear facing rule, like shooting at rear armor increases the ap by 1 unless the vehicle has a keyword like "heavy" or something.

That's way too much of a benefit for things, if we're going to be honest about it.

The ideal solution, IMO, is for vehicles to get something tied to the wound table and their ability to 'shrug off' damage.

The brief, brief gubbins I've given some thought to is this:
Armored Behemoth: While this model is using its top values on the Damage/Wound Table, it ignores Armor Penetration modifiers of -1 or lower and Damage values of 1.


The wording needs work and obviously it would have to get expanded to be the top two values for Titanic units or the like--but it makes it so that the vehicles which are supposed to be tougher and more durable aren't just getting spammed down by little things.

A similar rule could be added to Monstrous Creatures that have Wound Tables.
   
Made in gb
[SWAP SHOP MOD]
Killer Klaivex







 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
 Ketara wrote:
As the title says, which system do you prefer? The old armour facings on vehicles, or the new 'multi-wound/high toughness' combo?


From the most technical perspective, I prefer armor facings and damage effects governed by a critical hit table. It's more "realistic", and detail can be a lot of fun even though it wasn't really tactically significant.

However, from the gameplay perspective, I also believe that abstracting the defense of the vehicle has made a much smoother flowing game.


Reading through, this seems to sum up the majority of opinions. Swapping them to wounds has made for a more efficient and simpler gaming experience, but has cost the cinematic and unique feel of tanks. Now they're just bigger models.

So that leads to a followup question. Would any of you change back to armour facings if you could?


 
   
Made in us
Imperial Guard Landspeeder Pilot




On moon miranda.

 Ketara wrote:

So that leads to a followup question. Would any of you change back to armour facings if you could?
With the current ruleset? Hard pass. With a different ruleset, where facings were applied to a broader array of units and built inherently into the larger functionality of the game with a smaller scope/model count in general, absolutely.

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.  
   
Made in us
Ollanius Pius - Savior of the Emperor






Gathering the Informations.

Frankly, armor facings were garbage. There were enough ways to get around them that it just became "I CAN DEEP STRIKE FIRST!" and vehicles were deleted.

Doesn't matter the rules set, vehicles have always been inferior for 40k--barring some oddities. The big thing is and always will be that negative modifiers make or break vehicles, and invulnerable saves do as well.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka




NE Ohio, USA

BrianDavion wrote:
ccs wrote:
Either works for me.

What doesn't is the lack of vehicle fire arcs.


the problem with vehicle fire arcs is the model designers don't really think beyond "THIS LOOKS KEWL!" so some models tend to get fire arcs that aren't really that hot. The Land raider is exhibit A in that regard


You don't like the land raider design?? Go back in time to 1915/16 & bitch at the WWI Brits. They're the ones who designed their tanks with side arc firing sponsons.
   
Made in us
Blood-Drenched Death Company Marine




Little Rock, Arkansas

Current system.
I could maybe get behind a house rule of “-1 armor save when directly hitting 0% obscured rear armor,” but not the constant LOS checks of old. Also as some said above, some of the tank designs with regards to weapon aiming are flat out dumb. Like say...a flyer with an infantry-shredding gun ON TOP of the flyer.

20000+ points
Tournament reports:
1234567 
   
Made in us
Not as Good as a Minion





Astonished of Heck

 Vaktathi wrote:
It's a matter of scale and functionality.

Facings and firing arcs work in a skirmish game with deep rules and few models.

In a game like modern 40k, that can have several hundred models on the table, dozens of vehicles, no sense of scale, and relatively shallow but complex rules, wounds are by far the better option, particularly when the arcs and facings only applied to one unit type in the past (vehicles) but not others (like monsters or artillery or crew served heavy weapons).

I disagree on the scale point, but I agree on the rest. The important part is the depth of the rules. GW has decided that they are done with in-depth rule systems for now, and keeping Vehicles to Toughness does work better for that shallowness. But hey, I don't think anyone expected Battletech out of Warhammer, either.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Edit: GW never really got a separate AV system working well. Vehicles never worked quite right from 3rd-7th, there was (barring 5E) always an issue with "skimmers are better just because!", and balance on vehicles wobbled wildly. While an AV system could be made to work, GW's various iterations never really did.

Agreed. Before Hull Points, Vehicle Damage was crazy difficult, ranging from useless to obscenely over-powered, and that could be with a Lascannon. That Lascannon, Railgun, or Krak Missile was just as likely to make them just not shoot the next turn as it was to blow them up!

With Hull Points, it went a little too far the other way. Glancing taking away Hull Points was technically fine, except that they were stingy with those Hull Points, making the entire concept useless because Vehicles were now too fragile. Reversing how Glancing and Penetrating worked (Glance Rolled on table, with highest losing Hull point; Penetrating would lose Hull Point and Roll on table with highest Exploding) would probably have worked better at the provided Hull Points (though, still may have needed to add 1-3 depending on the Vehicle), or upping those Hull Points up to at least MC levels if not would have worked better. Monoliths and Land Raiders just needing only 4 Glances to kill when a Rhino took 3? Please.

Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
 
   
Made in au
Pestilent Plague Marine with Blight Grenade





 Grimtuff wrote:
I prefer the wounds system and the degrading profile with two caveats. I’d prefer it to be variable or something based on facing simply to add some depth and also, though this is more a byproduct of the streamlined wounding chart is simply some weapons should not be able to hurt certain things. A lasgun should have ZERO chance of harming any tank in the game, let alone a Land Raider.

It makes the game more tactical and speeds it up. No more need to roll a literal bucketful of dice in the hope you’ll remove a couple of wounds from that Russ.


I agree with this. I prefer the wound system for all models and the degrading damage chart represents bigger models/vehicles becoming less effective as they are damage nicely.

I would really like to see them add an extra paragraph to the wound section in the main rules something along the lines of "If the model being attacked is a VEHICLE, and it's Toughness value is double the attackers Strength, apply a -1 to wound"


"Courage and Honour. I hear you murmur these words in the mist, in their wake I hear your hearts beat harder with false conviction seeking to convince yourselves that a brave death has meaning.
There is no courage to be found here my nephews, no honour to be had. Your souls will join the trillion others in the mist shrieking uselessly to eternity, weeping for the empire you could not save.

To the unfaithful, I bring holy plagues ripe with enlightenment. To the devout, I bring the blessing of immortality through the kiss of sacred rot.
And to you, new-born sons of Gulliman, to you flesh crafted puppets of a failing Imperium I bring the holiest gift of all.... Silence."
- Mortarion, The Death Lord, The Reaper of Men, Daemon Primarch of Nurgle


5300 | 2800 | 3600 | 1600 |  
   
Made in au
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Overread wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
ccs wrote:
Either works for me.

What doesn't is the lack of vehicle fire arcs.


the problem with vehicle fire arcs is the model designers don't really think beyond "THIS LOOKS KEWL!" so some models tend to get fire arcs that aren't really that hot. The Land raider is exhibit A in that regard


Aye its a very solid thought. Esp when you've vehicles that don't have their primary weapons on a turret. There's a good few Siege style tanks in the game which don't have their weapon on a turret. Now that's fine for a game of Epic or other 6mm or similar scale game because they would typically be far back from the front lints. However in 40K they aren't. They can be right up close to the front lines so they have to do a lot more moving side to side to keep things in range.

IT also takes us back to the unfair state of vehicles vs things like demon engines and tyranids which traditionally had no fire arcs and yet were, for power and points, pretty much equivalent to vehicles.


You can deal with that quite easy just giving the tank as a whole fire arcs for each weapon, Land raider can fire its side weapons to the left and right front arc. With the little turret the full front arc. Same with the seige tanks, regardles or how far the weapons can move on the model. Turrets themselves could be given a small points cost as well if they prove usable enough over none turret weapons.

Would add a lot to how the battlefield plays out as well i feel.
   
Made in us
Homicidal Veteran Blood Angel Assault Marine





Dayton OH

The old way, at least for shooting. It's nonsense to look at something like an impulser and imagine bringing all of those guns to bear on a single target, and I never found firing arcs to be complicated.
I could do with the toughness and wounds if they didn't make the wounding chart too damn easy. I don't care how many sixes you roll a tank should be bolter proof.

For the Emperor! Kill Maim Burn!... I mean purge the unclean!  
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut





Multi-wound & high toughness for vehicles can go to hell.
   
Made in us
Keeper of the Flame





Monticello, IN

3rd Ed. had it right, with the exception of the Wraithlord.

www.classichammer.com

For 4-6th WFB, 2-5th 40k, and similar timeframe gaming

Looking for dice from the new AOS boxed set and Dark Imperium on the cheap. Let me know if you can help.
 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Its AoS, it doesn't have to make sense.
 
   
Made in ca
Focused Fire Warrior




Canada

"tactical depth" of vehicle facing+firing arcs is an illusion. Just a bookkeeping mundane mechanic.
   
Made in gb
Killer Klaivex




The dark behind the eyes.

ccs wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:

the problem with vehicle fire arcs is the model designers don't really think beyond "THIS LOOKS KEWL!" so some models tend to get fire arcs that aren't really that hot. The Land raider is exhibit A in that regard


You don't like the land raider design?? Go back in time to 1915/16 & bitch at the WWI Brits. They're the ones who designed their tanks with side arc firing sponsons.


Yeah, for the first tank ever built.

And basically every tank built thereafter replaced side-sponson guns with either a turret or a fixed forward-mounted gun.

One might think that warriors in the 41st millennium would have at least based their tank on the WW2 model.

 blood reaper wrote:
I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.



 the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"

 Argive wrote:
GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.


 Andilus Greatsword wrote:

"Prepare to open fire at that towering Wraithknight!"
"ARE YOU DAFT MAN!?! YOU MIGHT HIT THE MEN WHO COME UP TO ITS ANKLES!!!"


Akiasura wrote:
I hate to sound like a serial killer, but I'll be reaching for my friend occam's razor yet again.


 insaniak wrote:

You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.

Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
 
   
Made in it
Waaagh! Ork Warboss




Italy

 Just Tony wrote:
3rd Ed. had it right, with the exception of the Wraithlord.


In 3rd edition vehicles were appropriately resilient due to the average volume of fire of the armies which was basically like 25% of the current one. 5-6 (or 10-15 if you hit on 5s like orks) anti tank shots were tipycally enough in a 1500 points TAC list.

But that's it, I also would love shooting to be way less efficient but that has nothing to do with the "armour facings vs wounds" matter.

 
   
Made in gb
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord






ccs wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
ccs wrote:
Either works for me.

What doesn't is the lack of vehicle fire arcs.


the problem with vehicle fire arcs is the model designers don't really think beyond "THIS LOOKS KEWL!" so some models tend to get fire arcs that aren't really that hot. The Land raider is exhibit A in that regard


You don't like the land raider design?? Go back in time to 1915/16 & bitch at the WWI Brits. They're the ones who designed their tanks with side arc firing sponsons.


*Laughs in Lincoln

It was all a ruse. We set up GW a century ago to have terrible Land Raiders by inventing the tank. That’s some 4d chess right there.


Games Workshop Delenda Est.

Users on ignore- 53.

If you break apart my or anyone else's posts line by line I will not read them. 
   
Made in eu
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






Current system is better.
As for the durability complaints: I lost the vast majority of my 5th-7th edition battlewagons to scatter lasers, multi-lasers, assault- and autocannons - not going to happen in 8th.
And I'm glad about no longer having an argument every other game whether the deff rolla counted for determining the front arc or not, plus all those grot guns on the planes which couldn't even shoot other planes because they point upward for some reason.

7 Ork facts people always get wrong:
Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other.
A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot.
Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests.
Orks actually do not think that purple makes them harder to see. The joke was made canon by Alex Stewart's Caphias Cain books.
Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor.
Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers.
Orks do not have the power of believe. 
   
Made in no
Regular Dakkanaut




AV was better than wounds because it correctly modelled the likelihood of tanks getting blown up in the first shot they take, as is realistic. Especially since the more we advance, the less useful armour becomes. Modern tanks are paper because we know their only protection is firing first.

Tanks don't have magical pockets for enemy rounds that explode when full.

Tanks should be easy to blow up with dedicated anti-tank weaponry and cheaper/ more spammable as a result.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/11/26 13:25:18


 
   
Made in eu
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






LoftyS wrote:
AV was better than wounds because it correctly modelled the likelihood of tanks getting blown up in the first shot they take, as is realistic. Especially since the more we advance, the less useful armour becomes. Modern tanks are paper because we know their only protection is firing first.

Tanks don't have magical pockets for enemy rounds that explode when full.


Metla/lascannon/bright lance/dark lance hits landraider and destroys it. Same weapon hits nob on warbike, he loses one wound and he proceeds to ride on unhindered, as is "realistic".

Old vehicle rules had as much to do with realism as the current ones do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
LoftyS wrote:
Tanks should be easy to blow up with dedicated anti-tank weaponry and cheaper/ more spammable as a result.

That's the case right now though. Most tanks die lie flies to anti-tank fire.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/11/26 13:31:00


7 Ork facts people always get wrong:
Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other.
A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot.
Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests.
Orks actually do not think that purple makes them harder to see. The joke was made canon by Alex Stewart's Caphias Cain books.
Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor.
Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers.
Orks do not have the power of believe. 
   
Made in se
Rogue Grot Kannon Gunna






A mix of the two would be awesome
   
Made in se
Growlin' Guntrukk Driver with Killacannon





Sweden

I thought the armour facing rules were all right and immersive. However I think it was under-used. Stuff like carnifexes and riptides should also have had those rules. I dont see why a monster could not be instakilled by a melta in the heart, or stunned by a lasblast...
If those rules ever returned I dont think there should be other rulses for monsterous creatures or bipedal robots.

Brutal, but kunning!  
   
Made in pt
Journeyman Inquisitor with Visions of the Warp




 Emicrania wrote:
A mix of the two would be awesome

Armor facings could affect saves. Seems like a nice compromise
   
Made in ch
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





Yoyoyo wrote:
 Emicrania wrote:
A mix of the two would be awesome

Armor facings could affect saves. Seems like a nice compromise


That would actually make quite a bit of sense.
Yet, what do if you fully negate armour saves? Bonus damage?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/11/26 14:21:37


https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page
A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units."
Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?"
Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?"
GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!"
Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.  
   
Made in eu
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






I always thought that I'd be nice if negative armor would increase damage. Then again, that would make invulnerable saves even more important.

7 Ork facts people always get wrong:
Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other.
A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot.
Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests.
Orks actually do not think that purple makes them harder to see. The joke was made canon by Alex Stewart's Caphias Cain books.
Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor.
Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers.
Orks do not have the power of believe. 
   
Made in ch
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 Jidmah wrote:
I always thought that I'd be nice if negative armor would increase damage. Then again, that would make invulnerable saves even more important.


TBF, most invulnerable saves are not an issue until they hit the magic 4+ imo.
That is the point where high AT weaponry becomes useless against a target due to actually having 0 benefit for the higher price for the AP comparatively to Medium strength low ap weapons and or small guns.

Also GW throwing out invulnerables like candy, literally in EVERY list, adds to that imo.

i'd like to see a system where invulnerables add to saves instead if AP comes into play, meaning ap-1 would make a terminator go to 3+ sv which then would go down to 2+ again. This would be a somewhat ok compromise probaby?

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page
A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units."
Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?"
Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?"
GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!"
Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.  
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut




Or inversely. Leave armour saves as it is, but make invuls have a facing similar to the old way Knight Ion Shields worked, letting people work for that better save / work around that better save through positioning.
   
Made in ch
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





Sunny Side Up wrote:
Or inversely. Leave armour saves as it is, but make invuls have a facing similar to the old way Knight Ion Shields worked, letting people work for that better save / work around that better save through positioning.


That'd be a terrible system on infantry though...

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page
A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units."
Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?"
Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?"
GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!"
Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.  
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





 Jidmah wrote:
LoftyS wrote:
AV was better than wounds because it correctly modelled the likelihood of tanks getting blown up in the first shot they take, as is realistic. Especially since the more we advance, the less useful armour becomes. Modern tanks are paper because we know their only protection is firing first.

Tanks don't have magical pockets for enemy rounds that explode when full.


Metla/lascannon/bright lance/dark lance hits landraider and destroys it. Same weapon hits nob on warbike, he loses one wound and he proceeds to ride on unhindered, as is "realistic".

Old vehicle rules had as much to do with realism as the current ones do.

Or you take the good from both. D6 damage from a Lascannon, but also the Pen table.

So if a Lascannon hits a LandRaider, it's still got a chance to OHK it (1/36 in 7th).

But a Lascannon hitting a Biker is much more likely to kill it (5/9 in 8th).
   
Made in us
Krazed Killa Kan






Would of preferred if vehicles had their AV system but also armor saves. General rule of 4+ armor for skimmers/flyers/rear armor (so stuff like krak grenades in melee could still be effective). 3+ saves for most of your ground vehicles and walkers with 2+ being reserved for special cases like Land Raiders. Would make it so most proper anti vehicle weapons wouldn't be impacted by the change (melta gonna melta regardless of armor) but it would hurt those high strength + weak AP weapons (scatter lasers, Tesla, etc) or stuff that has special hull points stripping abilities like gauss.

"Hold my shoota, I'm goin in"
Armies (7th edition points)
7000+ Points Death Skullz
4000 Points
+ + 3000 Points "The Fiery Heart of the Emperor"
3500 Points "Void Kraken" Space Marines
3000 Points "Bard's Booze Cruise" 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: