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.

 Tyran wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah, AOS isn't perfect.

I suppose the biggest deal though is that Warhammer Fantasy was never very good in the "realism" department. Steam tanks and dragons could always be hurt by arrows or swords (aside from the brief stint in 7th edition where the steam tank was T10 instead of T6).

Shifting from "Arrows and swords can hurt your steam tank" to "arrows and swords can hurt your steam tank, but more easily" is less painful of a verisimilitude jump than "small arms and combat blades can't hurt your tank at all" to "small arms and combat blades aren't even really wasting their time shooting at you." I mean what, you only need 18 lasgun hits to put a wound on t8 3+?

That's true. I mean, I imagine a lot of monsters got easier to wound in 8th with small arms due to the change to the wounding table, but that seems to have drawn far fewer complaints than the removal of AVs for vehicles.

Yes and no. The largest T8 monsters got easier to wound (remmeber that T8 was exclusive to superheavy monsters). But the average monster was T6 and thus already vulnerable to small arms fire. Moreover the wound inflation made the smaller monsters far more resistnat to small arms, e.g the Carnifex went from needing 72 lasguns hits to die to needing the double, 144.
.

Perhaps, but a Lascannon used to only do 1W per hit against a Carnifex and cover meant a 4++ and sometimes more. Now cover can't help nearly as much, and multi-damage weapons can chew through the fex much, much faster.

The return of a damage characteristic was great. We just need less invulnerables and more wounds for stuff that should be resilient.

 Galas wrote:
The return of a damage characteristic was great. We just need less invulnerables and more wounds for stuff that should be resilient.

Agree on the first point, and I lean towards the second.

Yes, its very annoying when everything has some kind of reroll, invuln or extra save so when you miss your shot or do damage, you haven't really yet. More wounds, less "gotcha" saves/rerolls would be nice, but maybe im just a salty ork player who doesnt get either

 Insectum7 wrote:
Perhaps, but a Lascannon used to only do 1W per hit against a Carnifex and cover meant a 4++ and sometimes more. Now cover can't help nearly as much, and multi-damage weapons can chew through the fex much, much faster.

But no one used lascannons, it was always plasma and latter grav, the former is pretty much the same and the latter could chew through a Carnifex even faster than current multi-damage weapons.

And even lascannons haven't improved that much, it went from 4.8 hits to kill to 4.11 hits to kill. And they are actually sturdier against missile launchers, 4.8 hits to kill to 5.14 hits to kill.

 Billagio wrote:
Yes, its very annoying when everything has some kind of reroll, invuln or extra save so when you miss your shot or do damage, you haven't really yet. More wounds, less "gotcha" saves/rerolls would be nice, but maybe im just a salty ork player who doesnt get either

I think invulnerables are especially problematic on large vehicles/monsters with good armour. These are exactly the sort of targets that meltaguns should be effective against, yet the presence of invulnerable saves means that their extra AP over Lascannons and Plasma is completely wasted.

Invulnerable saves lower the value of AT while raising the value of mid-ap weapons. It would be one very obvious place to go if you wanted to actually address the fact that mid-tier weapon profiles are often more efficient than dedicated AT.

Also increasing the armor on vehicles and monsters (so 2+ would be the new standard) would increase the value of high AP weapons and reduce their vulnerability to mid-ap weapons.

 Tyran wrote:
Also increasing the armor on vehicles and monsters (so 2+ would be the new standard) would increase the value of high AP weapons and reduce their vulnerability to mid-ap weapons.

I think you could make a case for treating monsters and vehicles slightly differently- give vehicles the 2+, give monsters more wounds. That would make them feel different from one another, with vehicles demanding high-AP weapons while monsters soak up damage.

 catbarf wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
Also increasing the armor on vehicles and monsters (so 2+ would be the new standard) would increase the value of high AP weapons and reduce their vulnerability to mid-ap weapons.

I think you could make a case for treating monsters and vehicles slightly differently- give vehicles the 2+, give monsters more wounds. That would make them feel different from one another, with vehicles demanding high-AP weapons while monsters soak up damage.

I'm a fan of this, but while we're talking Tyranids, you'd have to fix their degradations IMO. Upping wounds means you've got to (in principle) up the threshold for when you degrade. Now, if Nids didn't degrade in such a fething punishing way I'd be okay with that... but this is all rather tangential already

 catbarf wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
Also increasing the armor on vehicles and monsters (so 2+ would be the new standard) would increase the value of high AP weapons and reduce their vulnerability to mid-ap weapons.

I think you could make a case for treating monsters and vehicles slightly differently- give vehicles the 2+, give monsters more wounds. That would make them feel different from one another, with vehicles demanding high-AP weapons while monsters soak up damage.

I would prefer a unit per unit basis depending on the lore. Eldar monsters need less wounds but more toughness and armor. Tyranids in general should have more wounds (although I would make the case the Tyrannofex and the Carnifex deserve a 2+ Save) and Tau monsters should stop being monsters.

 Tyran wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Perhaps, but a Lascannon used to only do 1W per hit against a Carnifex and cover meant a 4++ and sometimes more. Now cover can't help nearly as much, and multi-damage weapons can chew through the fex much, much faster.

But no one used lascannons, it was always plasma and latter grav, the former is pretty much the same and the latter could chew through a Carnifex even faster than current multi-damage weapons.

And even lascannons haven't improved that much, it went from 4.8 hits to kill to 4.11 hits to kill. And they are actually sturdier against missile launchers, 4.8 hits to kill to 5.14 hits to kill.

No one used Lascannons from 3rd through 7th? Yeah that doesn't check out.

Also recall that Twin Las means two Lascannons now, instead of one with rerolls. (And usually it's two with rerolls, now)

AND, in 3rd and 4th, at least, Carnifexes could be given a 2+ save, giving them a 2+ save vs. Missile Launchers. With 5th came the 4++ cover save.

 Insectum7 wrote:

No one used Lascannons from 3rd through 7th? Yeah that doesn't check out.

Also recall that Twin Las means two Lascannons now, instead of one with rerolls. (And usually it's two with rerolls, now)

AND, in 3rd and 4th, at least, Carnifexes could be given a 2+ save, giving them a 2+ save vs. Missile Launchers. With 5th came the 4++ cover save.

Not to kill Carnifexes, plasma was what was used to slaughter monsters. And with 5th came Cruddace who utterly crippled Tyranids. Even the current codex, while still on the weaker end, is considerably better than the 5th (and 6th) one.

 Tyran wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

No one used Lascannons from 3rd through 7th? Yeah that doesn't check out.

Also recall that Twin Las means two Lascannons now, instead of one with rerolls. (And usually it's two with rerolls, now)

AND, in 3rd and 4th, at least, Carnifexes could be given a 2+ save, giving them a 2+ save vs. Missile Launchers. With 5th came the 4++ cover save.

Not to kill Carnifexes, plasma was what was used to slaughter monsters. And with 5th came Cruddace who utterly crippled Tyranids. Even the current codex, while still on the weaker end, is considerably better than the 5th (and 6th) one.

Not to defend post-4th Nids, but I played against many, many MCs with a 2++ toe-cover save.

(also definitely used Lascannons against Nid MCs, because what else are you shoot your Lascannons at in a Nid army.)

Lol, in this thread are people exploring the differences between vehicles and monsters - while ignoring all the rules from earlier editions that neatly divided vehicles and monsters.

Insectum7 wrote:

 Tyran wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

No one used Lascannons from 3rd through 7th? Yeah that doesn't check out.

Also recall that Twin Las means two Lascannons now, instead of one with rerolls. (And usually it's two with rerolls, now)

AND, in 3rd and 4th, at least, Carnifexes could be given a 2+ save, giving them a 2+ save vs. Missile Launchers. With 5th came the 4++ cover save.

Not to kill Carnifexes, plasma was what was used to slaughter monsters. And with 5th came Cruddace who utterly crippled Tyranids. Even the current codex, while still on the weaker end, is considerably better than the 5th (and 6th) one.

Not to defend post-4th Nids, but I played against many, many MCs with a 2++ toe-cover save.

(also definitely used Lascannons against Nid MCs, because what else are you shoot your Lascannons at in a Nid army.)

That probably was the Tau Ghostheel.

Unit1126PLL wrote:Lol, in this thread are people exploring the differences between vehicles and monsters - while ignoring all the rules from earlier editions that neatly divided vehicles and monsters.

And as I said before, I really disliked that division. I still dislike the remnants of it in the current rules.

 Tyran wrote:
And as I said before, I really disliked that division. I still dislike the remnants of it in the current rules.

And as I've said before, I loved that division. An Elephant (or tyrannosaurus rex, or blue whale) has more in common with a human being than an M1 Abrams. The rules for monsters should be closer to those of humans than those of tanks, and I think earlier editions accomplished this handily.

The problem was when they made things that were closer to tanks (i.e. Riptide) into monsters, and for this I blame GW's proven inability to understand their own abstractions.

 Tyran wrote:

Insectum7 wrote:

 Tyran wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

No one used Lascannons from 3rd through 7th? Yeah that doesn't check out.

Also recall that Twin Las means two Lascannons now, instead of one with rerolls. (And usually it's two with rerolls, now)

AND, in 3rd and 4th, at least, Carnifexes could be given a 2+ save, giving them a 2+ save vs. Missile Launchers. With 5th came the 4++ cover save.

Not to kill Carnifexes, plasma was what was used to slaughter monsters. And with 5th came Cruddace who utterly crippled Tyranids. Even the current codex, while still on the weaker end, is considerably better than the 5th (and 6th) one.

Not to defend post-4th Nids, but I played against many, many MCs with a 2++ toe-cover save.

(also definitely used Lascannons against Nid MCs, because what else are you shoot your Lascannons at in a Nid army.)

That probably was the Tau Ghostheel.

No sir, definitely Nids. Possibly from Malanthrope. I recall facing a Heirodule receiving a 2++ IN FRONT of a ruin because it's back heel was in it.

And I have the extra painted Librarians that I used for Librarian Conclave in order to fish for the Ignores Cover Psychic power to prove it. haha

It was from multiple Venomthropes. 1 gave the Stealth special rule, 3 or more gave the Shrouded special rule.

Shrouded gave you +2 to your cover saves, for a 2+ if you were touching a ruin.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
It was from multiple Venomthropes. 1 gave the Stealth special rule, 3 or more gave the Shrouded special rule.

Shrouded gave you +2 to your cover saves, for a 2+ if you were touching a ruin.

Yup, that would have done it.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

And as I've said before, I loved that division. An Elephant (or tyrannosaurus rex, or blue whale) has more in common with a human being than an M1 Abrams. The rules for monsters should be closer to those of humans than those of tanks, and I think earlier editions accomplished this handily.

The problem was when they made things that were closer to tanks (i.e. Riptide) into monsters, and for this I blame GW's proven inability to understand their own abstractions.

And a Tyranid, Daemon or Eldar monster has nothing in common with an Elephant (or tyrannosaurus rex, or blue whale).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Yup, that would have done it.

Except that cover for monsters required the creature to be obscured by the terrain, touching wasn't enough.

A Tyranid is at least made of living tissue.

 Tyran wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

And as I've said before, I loved that division. An Elephant (or tyrannosaurus rex, or blue whale) has more in common with a human being than an M1 Abrams. The rules for monsters should be closer to those of humans than those of tanks, and I think earlier editions accomplished this handily.

The problem was when they made things that were closer to tanks (i.e. Riptide) into monsters, and for this I blame GW's proven inability to understand their own abstractions.

And a Tyranid, Daemon or Eldar monster has nothing in common with an Elephant (or tyrannosaurus rex, or blue whale).

A Tyranid has more in common with any wildlife on earth (save perhaps slime molds) than it does an M1 tank.
A Daemon can, in fact, have more in common with an M1 tank than an elephant - and unsurprisingly, the ones that do were treated like vehicles (soul grinders).
An Eldar monster is the only one I can agree with you on, and lo and behold they were vehicles (Eldar dreadnoughts) until getting turned into monsters (using presumably whatever insane logic they later applied to the Riptide as well). In fact, I wouldn't even call them monsters. They really were more like Eldar dreadnoughts.

 Tyran wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Yup, that would have done it.

Except that cover for monsters required the creature to be obscured by the terrain, touching wasn't enough.

Ummm. . . nope. "Models in Ruins get a 4+ cover save regardless of whether or not they are 25% obscured." Craters were similar, iirc.

Find me the rule that says so. I've got he 7th ed rulebook right here.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

A Tyranid has more in common with any wildlife on earth (save perhaps slime molds) than it does an M1 tank.
A Daemon can, in fact, have more in common with an M1 tank than an elephant - and unsurprisingly, the ones that do were treated like vehicles (soul grinders).
An Eldar monster is the only one I can agree with you on, and lo and behold they were vehicles (Eldar dreadnoughts) until getting turned into monsters (using presumably whatever insane logic they later applied to the Riptide as well). In fact, I wouldn't even call them monsters. They really were more like Eldar dreadnoughts, which was their old name.

You can blow up the head of a Tyranid monster and it will continue fighting because secondary brains, and of course (in the lore) it is immune to small arms fire, that is quite unlike any wildlife on earth.

And as I said before, the AV value was notably unrealistic because that isn't how armor penetration works.

EDIT: Also the difference meant that weapons that were useless against one were effective against the other and viceversa. Which was also not particularly realistic.

umm, unless you have a M2 browning, no ak47 or m16 or FN Fal would do anything except piss off an elephant.

 Tyran wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

A Tyranid has more in common with any wildlife on earth (save perhaps slime molds) than it does an M1 tank.
A Daemon can, in fact, have more in common with an M1 tank than an elephant - and unsurprisingly, the ones that do were treated like vehicles (soul grinders).
An Eldar monster is the only one I can agree with you on, and lo and behold they were vehicles (Eldar dreadnoughts) until getting turned into monsters (using presumably whatever insane logic they later applied to the Riptide as well). In fact, I wouldn't even call them monsters. They really were more like Eldar dreadnoughts, which was their old name.

You can blow up the head of a Tyranid monster and it will continue fighting because secondary brains, and of course (in the lore) it is immune to small arms fire, that is quite unlike any wildlife on earth.

Maybe, but Sicarius's "Decapitating Strike" hath felled me many a Nid MC.

Racerguy180 wrote:
umm, unless you have a M2 browning, no ak47 or m16 or FN Fal would do anything except piss off an elephant.

I've seen otherwise. Most poachers in Zimbabwe use antiquated black powder rifles and yes, they kill elephants. I think Hollywood gives people a skewed view of what bullets are capable of.

But that's just it, isn't it? 40K doesn't run on realism, it runs on over-the-top fantasy. If the fluff tells me that a walking bio-tank covered in chitinous armor plating is immune to small arms, then I can accept that in face value, and it doesn't seem that different from the durability of an armored vehicle. The consolidation of vehicles into the normal profile seemed and still seems like a good idea to me; there are just some nuances (like armor facing) that were stripped out during the transition and could still be added back to the current system, and if we did want monsters and vehicles to feel different in terms of resilience, that could be accomplished through stat adjustments.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Tyran wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Yup, that would have done it.

Except that cover for monsters required the creature to be obscured by the terrain, touching wasn't enough.

Ummm. . . nope. "Models in Ruins get a 4+ cover save regardless of whether or not they are 25% obscured." Craters were similar, iirc.

Find me the rule that says so. I've got he 7th ed rulebook right here.

The 7th ed FAQ.

Q: Some pieces of terrain (woods, ruins, craters, etc.) provide a cover save to a models even if they are not 25% obscured. Does this really include large models like Monstrous Creatures?
A: No. Just like Vehicles, Monstrous Creatures and Gargantuan Creatures are not obscured simply for being inside terrain such as woods or ruins.

 Tyran wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Tyran wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Yup, that would have done it.

Except that cover for monsters required the creature to be obscured by the terrain, touching wasn't enough.

Ummm. . . nope. "Models in Ruins get a 4+ cover save regardless of whether or not they are 25% obscured." Craters were similar, iirc.

Find me the rule that says so. I've got he 7th ed rulebook right here.

The 7th ed FAQ.

Q: Some pieces of terrain (woods, ruins, craters, etc.) provide a cover save to a models even if they are not 25% obscured. Does this really include large models like Monstrous Creatures?
A: No. Just like Vehicles, Monstrous Creatures and Gargantuan Creatures are not obscured simply for being inside terrain such as woods or ruins.

Hmm. . . I wonder what the date is on that. Either my friend was pulling one over me or those Faqs came a little later into the edition.

In fact the FAQ collection for 7th that I just found online does not have that particular rule.

Edit 2:
The "Final FAQ" provided by the Warhammer Community in Nov 2016 has that rule. 7Th started in 2014. I'm going to assume that the MC Cover rule came out after my friend quit 40K suspiciously around the same time I began spamming Grav Cannons. In any case, that 2++ cover save on MCs was definitely a "thing".