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.

I had my own personal thought that... You should look at AV 10 as an example, it requires Strength 7 to penetrate AV 10 on a roll of 4+, if you were equating that to Toughness, Strength 7 Wounds Toughness 7 on a 4+.

So converting a vehicle's toughness back into AV, where the vehicle didn't exist back in editions with AV, you would roughly make Toughness 7 AV10, T8 becomes AV11, T9 becomes AV12, etc, then adjust front/side/rear armor as you see fit.

You might need to make other adjustments because I frankly don't even know what the toughness of a rhino is, but I know it was AV 11/11/10. And I don't know what toughness a land raider is, but it was AV 14/14/14.

Depends on if you are converting from 8th/9th or from 10th as they have different toughness design space.

Currently in 10th:

Land Raider is T12 W16 Sv2++

Rhino is T9 W10 Sv3+

BTW autocannons are S9.

So roughly

T9 -> AV11
T10 -> AV12
T11 -> AV13
T12 -> AV14

 Tyran wrote:
Depends on if you are converting from 8th/9th or from 10th as they have different toughness design space.

Currently in 10th:

Land Raider is T12 W16 Sv2++

Rhino is T9 W10 Sv3+

BTW autocannons are S9.

So roughly

T9 -> AV11
T10 -> AV12
T11 -> AV13
T12 -> AV14

Wow they upgraded autocannons from S7 to S9? See, so many things can change when you just don't care about new editions. Sounds like they really beefed up vehicles in general. I don't mind vehicles being more beefy, I enjoy Battletech after all, I feel like there's a middle ground between 3rd-5th damage tables and recording wounds. But yeah its good to know what toughness the old vehicles had so you can convert the newer ones back down to AV.

10th's biggest change was probably that toughness now goes up to 13 (Monolith, Baneblade) and strength goes up to 24. Most traditional weapons which aren't destroyer grade or xenos super-advanced weapons usually ended up at 14 (demolisher, hunter killer missiles, predator turret) or 12 (lascannons, krak missiles).

There are still some weapons which haven't found their place yet (most prominently, basic bolters and shootas), but in general, it has improved the game for the better.

BanjoJohn wrote:
I had my own personal thought that... You should look at AV 10 as an example, it requires Strength 7 to penetrate AV 10 on a roll of 4+, if you were equating that to Toughness, Strength 7 Wounds Toughness 7 on a 4+.

So converting a vehicle's toughness back into AV, where the vehicle didn't exist back in editions with AV, you would roughly make Toughness 7 AV10, T8 becomes AV11, T9 becomes AV12, etc, then adjust front/side/rear armor as you see fit.

You might need to make other adjustments because I frankly don't even know what the toughness of a rhino is, but I know it was AV 11/11/10. And I don't know what toughness a land raider is, but it was AV 14/14/14.

Thank you, I appreciate this.

-STS

 Wyldhunt wrote:

slade the sniper wrote:
Yeah, the baseline rule set I think I am going with is 3E and then working everything into that.

The most difficult part is working vehicles into the AV system that didn't exist prior to 8th Edition.

Everything else is pretty easy so far, and since I don't play with points, it is all narrative, I don't have to worry about that.

-STS

Rule of thumb based on what I remember from 5th-7th:

AV10 = the absolute lightest of light vehicles. Usually open-topped and/or largely exposed cockpits. Things like dark eldar raiders or ork truks.
AV 11 = Proper tanks, but not especially well-armored. Rhinos are the most prominent example.
AV 12 = Well-armored tanks or the most-armored part of conventional tank that has strong and weak sides. A serpent and devilfish were both 12/12/10. A chimera was something like 12/11/10.
AV 13 = Especially well-armored. Usually the most durable side on an already somewhat armored vehicle. Vindicator's front armor (because of the siege shield) or a battle wagon's front.
AV 14 = This is either a land raider or a monolith.

Xenos vehicles tend to have the same AV on the sides as they do the front. Human vehicles are more likely to have weaker side armor than front, but there are still plenty of examples of (especially marine) vehicles with identical front and side values.

Leman Russ Tanks amd Battlewagons are also AV14 vehicles.

I would generally describe:
AV10 are light vehicles, that are notionally bullet resistant [IE armored humvee], if at all. Indeed, most small arms can damage Raiders and Trukks and the like.

AV11 are bulletproof vehicles, but are susceptible to large caliber small arms and very susceptible to big guns. [IE M113... and a rhino is in fact av11]. A Rhino, basically an M113, is exactly this, immune to basic rifle fire, but susceptible to heavy bolters and multilasers and very susceptible to machineguns.

AV12 are light armored vehicles [IE Bradley or BMP]... Chimerae, basically BMP's l, and most support vehicles, are exactly this.

AV13 light tanks, cavalry vehicles, etc.

AV14 are proper tanks, like an T-72 or an M1. Leman Russ, Land Raider, Monolith, and Battlewagon are Av14




As far as converting 8th edition profiles go:
Land Raider, Leman Russ, and super heavies were T8, so being T8 is AV14.

everything from Rhinos to Predators to Hammerheads were T7, with a Sv of 3+ or 4+, so you're going to have to use your discretion.

Some very light AV10 Open Topped vehicles were T6



Most armies in 40k use the same chassis for their MBT, IFV, and APC, with the tank version usually being uparmoured, which is another way to deal with it.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Leman Russ Tanks amd Battlewagons are also AV14 vehicles.

Only frontally, they had weaker armor on the sides and much weaker on the back, unlike the all around AV14 of Land Raiders and Monoliths,

slade the sniper wrote:
Yeah, the baseline rule set I think I am going with is 3E and then working everything into that.

The most difficult part is working vehicles into the AV system that didn't exist prior to 8th Edition.

Everything else is pretty easy so far, and since I don't play with points, it is all narrative, I don't have to worry about that.

-STS

For vehicles that didn't exist prior to 8th edition, you can usually find something comparable in the "Imperial Armor" books and tweak if necessary.

There's also the legendary "Vehicle Design Rules" (VDR) You'll have to scour the internet to find them, but IIRC they were in WD, then "Chapter Approved 2001" and I think even free online at one point. It basically provides you with guidelines to create vehicles for 3rd edition.

 Tyran wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Leman Russ Tanks amd Battlewagons are also AV14 vehicles.

Only frontally, they had weaker armor on the sides and much weaker on the back, unlike the all around AV14 of Land Raiders and Monoliths,

14/13/10(11) and 14/12/10 are both still AV14 vehicles.

Vehicles are typically evaluated by their front armor that they're hit on about 90% of the time.

You would be very hard pressed to say that you use the same weapons against a Predator or Hammerhead as a Leman Russ or Battlewagon, but if it kills a Leman Russ, it will also kill a Land Raider [monolith and the one Land raider with cermaite are a special case]

Vehicle Design Rules are inthe pipeline to be added to the 3e battle bible, but are currently not in it, perhaps before the next update I will get them in

My playgroup plays with 5th edition, and we did a bit of back porting of unit rules, but some part of the appeal of 5th edition for us is that a lot of the new releases don't exist yet, and the game is frozen in time so we don't have to deal with new releases and faqs and stuff.

5th, to some degree, is our choice because it hits a high water mark where most things have been introduced and units haven't been removed at scale yet, but also certain things like Flyers, Lords of War, and everything since 8th haven't been introduced yet.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:


Vehicles are typically evaluated by their front armor that they're hit on about 90% of the time.

The whole point of the oldschool facing system is that your opponent can and should be flanking you to get to the side and rear armor.
If that isn't true then I just no longer see the point to the whole system.

 Tyran wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:


Vehicles are typically evaluated by their front armor that they're hit on about 90% of the time.

The whole point of the oldschool facing system is that your opponent can and should be flanking you to get to the side and rear armor.
If that isn't true then I just no longer see the point to the whole system.

Are you going to rely on a Missile Launcher to stop a Battlewagon or Leman Russ? If you don't bring a few meltaguns or something else similar, you are going to lose.

With the ability to pivot freely during their move, turreted vehicles will almost always end in a position pointing their front armor at whatever is threatening them. And as most infantry heavy weapons can't move and tanks move and shoot 6", this means that tanks are basically only hit on non-front armor if they dive into the enemy lines or in melee, and being in melee kills your land raider more or less just as dead as a battlewagon.

Vehicles do get hit on their side and rear, but like real vehicles, they take the absolute vast majority of hits to their front armor, and you 100% never plan on dealing with tanks by "get into the side arc".
They're not like having a search for weakspots of surprise flanks like it's World of Tanks or War Thunder.



I look at the point of the system as not to make Wagons and Leman Russes easier to deal with than Land Raiders, but to allow them to be punished for being misplaced, which is comparatively important for powerful battle tanks like the Leman Russ compared to the Land Raider, which mostly is a box for carrying terminators. The Leman Russ is not normally less survivable than a Land Raider, but it has a vulnerability that affects how a player uses it.


The Wagon is a little special, in this respect, because the model is particularly long giving it a much narrower front and wider side than most vehicles, which, combined with its primary use as an assault transport does lead it to positions where it can be flanked more easily than other vehicles. But even then, most of the time I destroy them with Meltaguns, not by flanking with S7 or S8.

 Eilif wrote:


There's also the legendary "Vehicle Design Rules" (VDR) You'll have to scour the internet to find them, but IIRC they were in WD, then "Chapter Approved 2001" and I think even free online at one point. It basically provides you with guidelines to create vehicles for 3rd edition.

Chapter Approved 2004 has the Vehicle Design Rules, plus the Necron expansion (and new Dark Eldar vehicle upgrades, iirc), as well as the Tyranid Monstrous Creature design rules. I'd look for that.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 Tyran wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:


Vehicles are typically evaluated by their front armor that they're hit on about 90% of the time.

The whole point of the oldschool facing system is that your opponent can and should be flanking you to get to the side and rear armor.
If that isn't true then I just no longer see the point to the whole system.

Are you going to rely on a Missile Launcher to stop a Battlewagon or Leman Russ? If you don't bring a few meltaguns or something else similar, you are going to lose.

With the ability to pivot freely during their move, turreted vehicles will almost always end in a position pointing their front armor at whatever is threatening them. And as most infantry heavy weapons can't move and tanks move and shoot 6", this means that tanks are basically only hit on non-front armor if they dive into the enemy lines or in melee, and being in melee kills your land raider more or less just as dead as a battlewagon.

Vehicles do get hit on their side and rear, but like real vehicles, they take the absolute vast majority of hits to their front armor, and you 100% never plan on dealing with tanks by "get into the side arc".
They're not like having a search for weakspots of surprise flanks like it's World of Tanks or War Thunder.



I look at the point of the system as not to make Wagons and Leman Russes easier to deal with than Land Raiders, but to allow them to be punished for being misplaced, which is comparatively important for powerful battle tanks like the Leman Russ compared to the Land Raider, which mostly is a box for carrying terminators. The Leman Russ is not normally less survivable than a Land Raider, but it has a vulnerability that affects how a player uses it.


The Wagon is a little special, in this respect, because the model is particularly long giving it a much narrower front and wider side than most vehicles, which, combined with its primary use as an assault transport does lead it to positions where it can be flanked more easily than other vehicles. But even then, most of the time I destroy them with Meltaguns, not by flanking with S7 or S8.

For my experience, I was typically deploying Lascannons along a broad front so that I could threaten flank shots and use that threat to suppress movement. But also I did a lot side/rear shooting from fast movers (Land Speeders) or Deep Strikes (Pods and Teleportation).

The other major factor for vehicles without all-around 14 armor was the threat some Infantry posed by way of CC or Grenade attacks. 14 armor on the front is great but those sides can still be exploited.

I also always really appreciated that Eldar got a lot of access to Strength 6 attacks on fast units. S6 was just enough to pose a threat to 11-12 armor flanks, and merely glancing and suppressing fire was very valuable.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
My playgroup plays with 5th edition, and we did a bit of back porting of unit rules, but some part of the appeal of 5th edition for us is that a lot of the new releases don't exist yet, and the game is frozen in time so we don't have to deal with new releases and faqs and stuff.

5th, to some degree, is our choice because it hits a high water mark where most things have been introduced and units haven't been removed at scale yet, but also certain things like Flyers, Lords of War, and everything since 8th haven't been introduced yet.

They were absolutely in the game, you just had to use the FW books. and in those books they tell you not to be an let your opponent know your bringing a flyer or a superheavy. because "the game is supposed to be fun for both players" Also the old rules for superheavies were designed for regular games since this was prior to the apocalypse powerups. for example a turbo laser destructor found on a titan was just a long range las cannon stat wise with a small blast template as no such thing as a "Destroyer" weapon existed.

Our 5th ed group barrows a bit from 3rd/4th and 6th/7th to make the game more fun (snap fire/overwatch/grenade throwing) but using flyers/superheavies have no negative effect on the game at all as the original rules for them were designed for normal games of 40K.

 aphyon wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
My playgroup plays with 5th edition, and we did a bit of back porting of unit rules, but some part of the appeal of 5th edition for us is that a lot of the new releases don't exist yet, and the game is frozen in time so we don't have to deal with new releases and faqs and stuff.

5th, to some degree, is our choice because it hits a high water mark where most things have been introduced and units haven't been removed at scale yet, but also certain things like Flyers, Lords of War, and everything since 8th haven't been introduced yet.

They were absolutely in the game, you just had to use the FW books. and in those books they tell you not to be an let your opponent know your bringing a flyer or a superheavy. because "the game is supposed to be fun for both players" Also the old rules for superheavies were designed for regular games since this was prior to the apocalypse powerups. for example a turbo laser destructor found on a titan was just a long range las cannon stat wise with a small blast template as no such thing as a "Destroyer" weapon existed.

Our 5th ed group barrows a bit from 3rd/4th and 6th/7th to make the game more fun (snap fire/overwatch/grenade throwing) but using flyers/superheavies have no negative effect on the game at all as the original rules for them were designed for normal games of 40K.

I actually own some of the IA books, including IA1 v1, so I am aware that baneblades and marauders have been in the game since well before 5th edition, but they weren't a standard part of the game yet.

I also own 5 baneblades and a macharius, so I'm part of the problem too.

I also play Witch Hunters, so Im also aware that allies also were entirely new for 6th edition.

But, for the most part, Flyers, Super Heavies, and Allies weren't part of playing 5th edition, unless you were playing apocalypse.

More significantly than the super heavies, because we do like the classic ones like the Baneblade, Stompa, Macharius, and Malcador, is that the treadmill doesnt exist if playing old editions. The world is frozen in time, and we dont have to worry about new rules or having to get new units to keep our armies up to date and legal.



I am also aware that some of the units that were deleted from the codex lived on through IA, though I dont have the second versions of IA1 and IA2 from 6th edition, but there are other aspects of 6th edition not to like that makes 5th our edition of choice.





Also, more in the vein of the thread, we kind of use whatever codex we want. I choose to use my Witch Hunters and Daemonhunters codecies over the White Dwarf Sisters thing [which I don't have], for example.

This gets us what we want, while not getting what we dont want. There is a discussion about the 6th Ed Chaos codex because one guy who waffles likes the Helldrake.

Totally agree! that's why our group went back to core 5th. since we allow any codex from 3rd-7th within the 5th ed rules GW will never screw us again and we can use the models and armies we like. As far as big stuff goes-

I have 2 warhounds, a doomhammer, a macharius, as for aircraft only a stormhawk, corvus blackstar and a storm eagle.

I got the IA books when they were new so we always had superheavies and flyers even before apocalypse. fun has always been the important part thats we we stole some of the fun stuff from 6/7th ed to make core 5th ed better.
Aside from the double FOC the demon/witch hunters allies special rules were quite useful for making interesting army mixes like SOB and black templar or the added GK unit helping your guard or marines deal with some chaos.

I am envious of both of your "frozen in time" groups. I have multiple collections that would thrive in that environment. Hopefully someday I can get my own group going. May "middlehammer" live forever!

OPR is interesting but doesn't scratch the itch.

 Insectum7 wrote:
I am envious of both of your "frozen in time" groups. I have multiple collections that would thrive in that environment. Hopefully someday I can get my own group going. May "middlehammer" live forever!

OPR is interesting but doesn't scratch the itch.

If I were you, I'd throw together some 750 point lists of different factions that you own for the edition you want to play, pick a day, advertise it among your local group of players, and offer to provide the armies for people to use and help teach the edition to people interested.

You'll have to start small but you could eventually get a group going.

Our club has started to scratch the middlehammer itch by playing 4th edition rules with 3rd and 4th codicies, which have almost all the classic units and require pretty much zero work to fit together.

This thread reminds me of the Prohammer guys.

OP, I think if you search for Prohammer, you may find some of these threads, and it was basically a rules system that allowed folks to choose their favourite dex from the 3rd-7th era.

I never played it myself, but it sounded like the folks who developed it put a lot of time and effort into it, and it sounds like they had a lot of fun playing the system.

One of the developers was really active here for quite a while, and was surprised that he hasn't popped up in this thread. Maybe he's taking a bit of a hobby break... Or even just a Dakka break.

 PenitentJake wrote:
This thread reminds me of the Prohammer guys.

OP, I think if you search for Prohammer, you may find some of these threads, and it was basically a rules system that allowed folks to choose their favourite dex from the 3rd-7th era.

I never played it myself, but it sounded like the folks who developed it put a lot of time and effort into it, and it sounds like they had a lot of fun playing the system.

One of the developers was really active here for quite a while, and was surprised that he hasn't popped up in this thread. Maybe he's taking a bit of a hobby break... Or even just a Dakka break.

Yeah he and i went back and forth quite a bit discussing what to include since my group had been doing it before he launched his effort. strangely (not) he came to many of the same conclusions. it is definitely very pro looking as he put in so much work. the only thing i really don't jive with is his group creating their own rules on their own. our group just uses existing rules, occasionally importing things from nearby editions to improve gameplay but mostly using 5th ed core rules.

 aphyon wrote:
the only thing i really don't jive with is his group creating their own rules on their own. our group just uses existing rules, occasionally importing things from nearby editions to improve gameplay but mostly using 5th ed core rules.

Oldhammer fan rules have been nothing if not varied over the years.

I have a modded 8th edition edition that I plan to stick around. I use 8th codexes as the top priority for rulings and only use others if the unit, battlegear, or strategem doesn't exist in the 8th codex.

My main reason is because I have custom units and strategems and I don't want to update them constantly every 3 years and its nice to hone to a single edition as tactics evolve.

But even then, you got to be careful because there are some weird design philosophies, even 9th and 10th are more buffed in stats and are more homogenous among each other.

The facing AV is super important to me, because that is a legitimately crunchy validation for the entirely realistic tactic of flanking.

-STS