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.

Bharring wrote:

 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).

7th has sufficiently proven that providing two alternative ways to kill vehicles is very bad.

Bharring wrote:

 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).

One hit kill on vehicles is great for narrative games. Terrible for everything else. It isn't fun for the person losing the vehicle and it doesn't really enhance the game for you, because you got a lucky roll.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Bharring wrote:

 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).

One hit kill on vehicles is great for narrative games. Terrible for everything else. It isn't fun for the person losing the vehicle and it doesn't really enhance the game for you, because you got a lucky roll.

TBF with a post knight meta, you don't really last any longer on the table with the average vehicle aswell.

I thik a hybrid solution would be the best way. Re-introduce facings but with some sort of modifier, keep wounds. Maybe introduce a "true" 1+ save so that AP0 weapons can't hurt vehicles and even AP-1/-2 have a harder time.

Also, no Invulnerables for Vehicles (a tiny few exceptions of course)

Not Online!!! wrote:
TBF with a post knight meta, you don't really last any longer on the table with the average vehicle aswell.

I haven't lost four battlewagons before they moved in 8th yet, and even against haywire spam, losing more than one can already be considered bad luck.
In previous editions, I had multiple games where I lost all four before they moved, sometimes in addition to some trukks and buggies. Losing two was pretty much to be expected.

 Jidmah wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
TBF with a post knight meta, you don't really last any longer on the table with the average vehicle aswell.

I haven't lost four battlewagons before they moved in 8th yet, and even against haywire spam, losing more than one can already be considered bad luck.
In previous editions, I had multiple games where I lost all four before they moved, sometimes in addition to some trukks and buggies. Losing two was pretty much to be expected.

So just i am that unlucky then?

It was disappointing to see vehicles and monsters merge together so much, vehicles were and should remain subpar to monsters in terms of agility. Vehicles are (in general) faster and often equipped with an arsenal of higher grade ranged and melee weapon, while monsters are more flexible and agile (even the big fatties)

I don't mind replacing the armor system with T and wounds, though.

A lot of issues in the previous edition was caused by GW insisting on releasing robotic walkers for multiple factions and giving them monster rules, while the actual monsters were minced meat (unless they could fly).

Not Online!!! wrote:

TBF with a post knight meta, you don't really last any longer on the table with the average vehicle aswell.

Not so far for me. Marines have jack gak for heavy weapons at range lately. T8 is a bear for them to get through and Vindicators haven't been terrible at putting holes in Centurions.

Waaaghbert wrote:
Also, no Invulnerables for Vehicles (a tiny few exceptions of course)

Second this. All vehicles with and invulnerable save should just get additional wounds according to their invul save and done:
4++ = +100%
5++ = +50%
6++ = +33%

 Jidmah wrote:

Waaaghbert wrote:
Also, no Invulnerables for Vehicles (a tiny few exceptions of course)

Second this. All vehicles with and invulnerable save should just get additional wounds according to their invul save and done:
4++ = +100%
5++ = +50%
6++ = +33%

5++ = 50% more wounds.
I don't think you want defielers with that wound count running around lad.

I think it's the other way, that anti-tank weapons are really effective against both infantry and vehicles/monstrous creatures, while the volume of anti-infantry weapons makes the best ones against infantry also effective against vehicles.

In Epic Armageddon you had Anti-Infantry weapons which could only remove Infantry and Light Vehicle models, Anti-Tank weapons would could only remove Armoured Vehicles (including Monstrous Creatures) and knock points off War Engines, and and Anti-Aircraft which let you shoot at Flyers. There were also Macro Weapons, which let you mash any units and deny them saves (unless they had the Reinforced Armour trait) to boot.

This didn't leave stuff with AT completely vulnerable to Armoured Vehicles, as they could do an Engage move and engage the Armoured Vehicle detachment using their Close Combat (CC) and Firefight (FF) values, but it did serve to make list-building interesting in that you needed a mix of weapons. It also meant that you didn't need to make vehicles like really big infantry.

Not Online!!! wrote:
I don't think you want defielers with that wound count running around lad.

Yes I do. Maybe then their regeneration would at least be used once per game.

 Jidmah wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
I don't think you want defielers with that wound count running around lad.

Yes I do. Maybe then their regeneration would at least be used once per game.

That is actually a valid point.

Actually that might make a dakka daemonengine castle work.


I think i'd agree in hindsight with that.

 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".

We had instant death under those very rules. Nob on Warbike was T5 and would be instantly killed by a railgun.

For the most part it worked fine. The only dumb thing was Crisis Suit instant death to Missile Launchers, zero sense was made that day. They should never have been T4(5), nor should Stealth Suits have been T3(4) - just straight T5 and T4 respectively.

New system is far superiour for me. Firing at an Eldar vehicle was pure hell, so many debates over the sides.

It also helps with estimating the survivability of vehicles when building lists since you don't have to factor in something as nebulous as cover.

I also like the fact that any unit can theoretically hurt a vehicle now if it rolls lucky enough. Sometimes before a 14/14/14 vehicle would be literally invulnerable if the opponent's anti-armour weapons got nuked with a lucky roll.

 Priestess_Argent wrote:
New system is far superiour for me. Firing at an Eldar vehicle was pure hell, so many debates over the sides.

Telling Front from Side on a CWE or Harlie vehicle could be a pain, but rear was always obvious. But, fortunately, front/side didn't matter - they had the same AVs.

DE vehicles weren't hard either, but at 10/10/10 didn't matter.

Where were you having trouble with Eldar facings?

It also helps with estimating the survivability of vehicles when building lists since you don't have to factor in something as nebulous as cover.

Conversely, it also guts impact of something as critical as cover/LOS.

I also like the fact that any unit can theoretically hurt a vehicle now if it rolls lucky enough. Sometimes before a 14/14/14 vehicle would be literally invulnerable if the opponent's anti-armour weapons got nuked with a lucky roll.

I wouldn't agree. I don't like that a Lasgun can actually hurt a Land Raider. And a Plasma Gun can threaten anything in the game. In 7th, taking Plasma to torch a Land Raider wasn't just stupid, it was actually impossible.

Most anti-infantry (anti-GEQ or -MEQ/TEQ) weapons simply didn't have the S to be a big threat to moderate/heavy armor. Some of the stronger ones could somewhat threaten lighter armor, but it forced more variation between "This is for hunting tanks" and "This is for mowing guys down".

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
I don't think you want defielers with that wound count running around lad.

Yes I do. Maybe then their regeneration would at least be used once per game.

That is actually a valid point.

Actually that might make a dakka daemonengine castle work.


I think i'd agree in hindsight with that.

Except you guys just made infantry totally un-viable and vehicles that didn't have invulnerable saves worthless.

Previously it took 13.6 lascannon shots to kill a defiler. Under this system it would take 16.2.
Close range multi-melta would be 10.5 and 10.5, so literally no benefit other than totally removing the agency of the other player.

Nurglitch wrote:
I think it's the other way, that anti-tank weapons are really effective against both infantry and vehicles/monstrous creatures, while the volume of anti-infantry weapons makes the best ones against infantry also effective against vehicles.

In Epic Armageddon you had Anti-Infantry weapons which could only remove Infantry and Light Vehicle models, Anti-Tank weapons would could only remove Armoured Vehicles (including Monstrous Creatures) and knock points off War Engines, and and Anti-Aircraft which let you shoot at Flyers. There were also Macro Weapons, which let you mash any units and deny them saves (unless they had the Reinforced Armour trait) to boot.

This didn't leave stuff with AT completely vulnerable to Armoured Vehicles, as they could do an Engage move and engage the Armoured Vehicle detachment using their Close Combat (CC) and Firefight (FF) values, but it did serve to make list-building interesting in that you needed a mix of weapons. It also meant that you didn't need to make vehicles like really big infantry.

This times 1000.

There's not really "Anti Infantry" and "Anti Tank" weapons anymore. Some weapons have an edge against one or the other, but a weapon that's good against one is, far too often these days, good against the other.

We had some of that in 7th with things like ScatterLasers in large numbers - good against infantry and light weapons. But they were the exception, and were enough of an outlier they were obviously OP.

If you needed to take a MeltaGun or Lascannon to be a threat against a real tank, but you need to take a Flamer or Heavy Bolter to be a real threat to Ork Boyz, you had real, compelling, difficult choices to make. If you can just take a Plasma Gun or Intercessor or Reaper and eat both easily, not so much.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
I don't think you want defielers with that wound count running around lad.

Yes I do. Maybe then their regeneration would at least be used once per game.

That is actually a valid point.

Actually that might make a dakka daemonengine castle work.


I think i'd agree in hindsight with that.

Except you guys just made infantry totally un-viable and vehicles that didn't have invulnerable saves worthless.

Previously it took 13.6 lascannon shots to kill a defiler. Under this system it would take 16.2.
Close range multi-melta would be 10.5 and 10.5, so literally no benefit other than totally removing the agency of the other player.

oh noes, the melta get's a niche back....

LoftyS wrote:

 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".

We had instant death under those very rules. Nob on Warbike was T5 and would be instantly killed by a railgun.

Nice goalpost there. Would you mind not moving it?

For the most part it worked fine. The only dumb thing was Crisis Suit instant death to Missile Launchers, zero sense was made that day. They should never have been T4(5), nor should Stealth Suits have been T3(4) - just straight T5 and T4 respectively.

So you are saying a tau guy in thin armor never dying to a single missile is fine, while a massive tank like the LBRT should be instantly destroyed? Ok.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
so literally no benefit other than totally removing the agency of the other player.

I was not aware that rolling a dice without any decision making or possible interactions counts as "agency".

 Jidmah wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
so literally no benefit other than totally removing the agency of the other player.

I was not aware that rolling a dice without any decision making or possible interactions counts as "agency".

The "I take hyper-specialized antiarmor weapons designed to threaten the toughest armored vehicles out there to counter your supertough heavily armored super-vehicle" is some of the agency lost. Or the "I shoot you from behind, because I'm a sneaky git like that, so it's easier to smoke your tank" is some of the agency lost.

Crazy idea, but what if a certain keyword or two reduced the Dmg of a weapon?

Say, if they have the Keyword "Tank", then Dmg per Hit is -1. This could be applied to a Predator, Defiler, or Carnifex to represent the ability to shrug off damage, requiring those multi-damage weapons like Melta and Lascannon to do anything where a Heavy Bolter wouldn't.

I wouldn't want to make it for all Vehicles, mainly because certain Vehicles really are too fragile to be affected by this, and some Monstrous Creatures really are designed to be quite tanky.

On the other hand, once you open the can of worms for reducing Dmg, who knows where the developers would take it...

Vehicles getting armour saves back was good, not sure why invented a system where they could go above 10 in stats like toughness and then don't bother?

All people looking for complex and convoluted rules to make tanks and heavy monsters more strong. Invulnerables, reductions of damage, FNP, ignore ap...


All of that is just worthless when you can just give all of them more wounds. Remove invulnerables for most vehicles, with the exception with some of those light vehicles with not many wounds like eldar vehiclers or stuff like that, and just give them more wounds.

If d6 weapons are not enough you could give the minimun damage 3 and BAM. Anti infantry weapons are no more usefull because removing two wounds of a 20 wound rhino with your heavy bolter is not as good of an investment as removing 2 wounds of a 10 wound rhino.

And yeah anti tank weapons would take more shoots to kill tanks that they do now but... isn't that one of the problems? That vehicles are popping out like pop corn?

More wounds = The simpler and best solution to both problems of anti infantry weapons killing tanks and tanks being too fragile.

Agreed with just giving vehicles more wounds, if they need it.

 Galas wrote:
All people looking for complex and convoluted rules to make tanks and heavy monsters more strong. Invulnerables, reductions of damage, FNP, ignore ap...


All of that is just worthless when you can just give all of them more wounds. Remove invulnerables for most vehicles, with the exception with some of those light vehicles with not many wounds like eldar vehiclers or stuff like that, and just give them more wounds.

If d6 weapons are not enough you could give the minimun damage 3 and BAM. Anti infantry weapons are no more usefull because removing two wounds of a 20 wound rhino with your heavy bolter is not as good of an investment as removing 2 wounds of a 10 wound rhino.

And yeah anti tank weapons would take more shoots to kill tanks that they do now but... isn't that one of the problems? That vehicles are popping out like pop corn?

More wounds = The simpler and best solution to both problems of anti infantry weapons killing tanks and tanks being too fragile.

1. Having to book keep a bunch of D10s or D20s on every vehicle is clunky.
2. If feels wrong as they feel like rolling meatboxes soaking wounds instead of the feeling of being impervious to small arms but at risk to the heavy hitting weapons. Also makes getting damage through more meaningful than taking 3 wounds off a 28 wound model.

Also, some of us who want Armor Facings back aren't looking to make vehicles "stronger" or "weaker" - we're looking for more impactful positioning/facing.

..kinda want facings with different t scores.

Like the slow degeneration of vehicles, so I guess I'd like expanded previous edition damage charts.

 Vankraken wrote:

 Galas wrote:
All people looking for complex and convoluted rules to make tanks and heavy monsters more strong. Invulnerables, reductions of damage, FNP, ignore ap...


All of that is just worthless when you can just give all of them more wounds. Remove invulnerables for most vehicles, with the exception with some of those light vehicles with not many wounds like eldar vehiclers or stuff like that, and just give them more wounds.

If d6 weapons are not enough you could give the minimun damage 3 and BAM. Anti infantry weapons are no more usefull because removing two wounds of a 20 wound rhino with your heavy bolter is not as good of an investment as removing 2 wounds of a 10 wound rhino.

And yeah anti tank weapons would take more shoots to kill tanks that they do now but... isn't that one of the problems? That vehicles are popping out like pop corn?

More wounds = The simpler and best solution to both problems of anti infantry weapons killing tanks and tanks being too fragile.

1. Having to book keep a bunch of D10s or D20s on every vehicle is clunky.
2. If feels wrong as they feel like rolling meatboxes soaking wounds instead of the feeling of being impervious to small arms but at risk to the heavy hitting weapons. Also makes getting damage through more meaningful than taking 3 wounds off a 28 wound model.

Keeping track of the wounds in your big models wouldn't be that much different than it is now, TBH.
And with 2 thats exactly what more wounds would accomplish. Firing with small arms at a vehicle and scrapping 2 wounds means nothing. A couple lass cannon shots that take out 12 damage is another thing. I know you like the old system, but as it is obvious in this new system theres a ton of people that feel tanks aren't resilient enough. Invulnerable saves, FNP to vehicles, minus damage habilities, etc... all of that are inferior to just make things have more wounds. All of them have their own problems, more wounds has none.

Vehicles just need one thing in this edition: firepower to be reduced by 50% (if not more) for every army. Removing re-rolls and stratagems that allow something firing twice would be a great start.