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.

A little idea I've been considering... I have always disliked 40K's use of different damage methods for vehicles and non-vehicles. It's particularly nonsensical now with the ever-increasing number of should-have-been-a-Walker Monstrous Creatures popping up in the game.


SO, what I'm thinking is the following:
- Remove vehicle armour values. Ignore vehicle facings for attacking them (it makes little sense to be able to flank a vehicle when no similar tactical ability exists for attacking infantry units), and take the vehicle's existing frontal armour and turn it into Toughness. Armour 14 becomes T10, and work down from there.

- Hull Points become Wounds

- When attacking, roll to wound just as you would with a non-vehicle model.
-- - If you equal the score required to wound (so you need a 4+, and roll a 4) that's a Glancing Hit - Lose a wound.
-- - If you beat the score required to wound (so you need a 4+, and roll a 5 or 6) that's a Penetrating hit - Lose a wound, and roll on the Vehicle Damage chart.


As a preference, I would also do away with weapon LOS for Walkers... under this system, Walkers would essentially just be Monstrous Creatures with a Damage roll on Penetrating Hits.


Any thoughts? Any obvious problems with this that I might have missed?

Not a bad way of resolving things, but I have a problem with it because I feel rules changes should address more intrinsic issues first. Treating a vehicle's armor as the same all the way around makes sense only because GW has already made the stupid rule of treating it that way in close combat. The current rule is less tactical and counter intuitive so I see no reason for validating it with more rules. Hull points are also a poor solution - instead of tuning the damage table GW essentially assigned wounds to vehicles.

I guess what I'm saying is that while your idea is good it's undermined by GW's already wonky direction in game mechanics. It's like giving an aspirin to a cancer patient.

Wouldn't snipers and poisoned weapons cause a problem?

It's been done. That's how vehicles started out in 40k. The system didn't work out any better. Still fewer vehicles on the table as they were tougher but more expensive.

I agree having separate damage resolution methods is just an unnecessary complication.

But as others have pointed out, it just a symptom of using WHFB game mechanics and resolution methods in a game system better suited to more modern alternatives.

The problem is to address the core problems of the 40k rule set, would mean a complete re-write.
And I would rather use the mechanics and resolution methods good battle games,( like Epic Armageddon,Net Epic,Flames Of War, Dirt side etc.)Rather than the ancient WHFB ones.

But as a quick fix , I can not see anything wrong with using T and W for vehicles as house rules. As a more radical change (re-write) would take longer to develop.

amanita wrote: Treating a vehicle's armor as the same all the way around makes sense only because GW has already made the stupid rule of treating it that way in close combat.

It's not just that. 40K has no flanking rules for anything other than vehicles. Attacking an infantry unit from the rear or the side makes no difference to your attacks... so why bother making it different for vehicles?

Removing the issue of facings isn't 'validating wonky rules'... it's just removing an artifact of 2nd edition (when the facing of all of your models actually mattered) that has been removed for everything else in the game a long time ago. And removes the constant arguments over which facing you're shooting at when the vehicle isn't a perfect rectangle.

Hansisaf wrote:Wouldn't snipers and poisoned weapons cause a problem?

No more so than for, say, Necrons.

Snipers in 40K have traditionally been assumed to carry a range of different ammo types to affect any conceivable target.

 insaniak wrote:

amanita wrote: Treating a vehicle's armor as the same all the way around makes sense only because GW has already made the stupid rule of treating it that way in close combat.

It's not just that. 40K has no flanking rules for anything other than vehicles. Attacking an infantry unit from the rear or the side makes no difference to your attacks... so why bother making it different for vehicles?

Removing the issue of facings isn't 'validating wonky rules'... it's just removing an artifact of 2nd edition (when the facing of all of your models actually mattered) that has been removed for everything else in the game a long time ago. And removes the constant arguments over which facing you're shooting at when the vehicle isn't a perfect rectangle.

Not really. Since WWI AFV's have had variable thicknesses of armor, with the front being thicker than the back for obvious reasons. Good simulations simply reflect the fact. Modern infantry formations shouldn't suffer the same effect from flanking attacks because the nature of older formations even up to the American civil war absolutely relied on which direction they faced. Today, not so much. Psychologically perhaps, but NOT mechanically like in the past.

Removing vehicle armour facings would take one of the few tactical elements left in the game away.

I personally hate the damage table, but tbh its far more realistic than wounds so I put up with it.

 Dakkamite wrote:
Removing vehicle armour facings would take one of the few tactical elements left in the game away.

I personally hate the damage table, but tbh its far more realistic than wounds so I put up with it.

I wasn't suggesting replacing the damage table with wounds. I was suggesting replacing hull points with wounds, since they're effectively the same thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 amanita wrote:
Good simulations simply reflect the fact. .

That's just it, though: 40k isn't a simulation. The designers have said numerous times in the past that their aim is to create a game, not a simulation. The level of abstraction that is appropriate therefore comes down to a combination of personal preference and the intended scope of the game.

I have no problem with the game being more complex, but it should be consistent in that case. Even in modem day warfare, enfilade fire, our catching a unit from behind, has a different level of effectiveness to firing from front on. If the rules are going to ignore that for infantry, I would rather they go all out and just remove it from the game entirely.

Never said you were man, I was just addressing the thread in general.

Got no strong opinion on the hull points/wounds thing though I've gotta admit it does look like two names for the same thing.

The designers have said numerous times in the past that their aim is to create a game

Then what the feth is up with true line of sight? I think GW just as little clue about what they're trying to make as they do in making the thing.

 Dakkamite wrote:
Then what the feth is up with true line of sight?

They like it because it is more 'cinematic'.

And yes, I know that term has been thrown around a lot since 6th ed was released, but in this case it's accurate. GW devs have said in the past that they feel that getting down and looking from the model's point of view gets players more personally invested in the game.

And to a certain extent, I agree with them. There's a certain 'cool' factor in seeing that shot from the model's perspective. Where it falls down is just in 40K's lack of definition over what is and isn't acceptable for modelling purposes, given how modelling choices impact LOS.

 insaniak wrote:

 Dakkamite wrote:
Then what the feth is up with true line of sight?

They like it because it is more 'cinematic'.

And yes, I know that term has been thrown around a lot since 6th ed was released, but in this case it's accurate. GW devs have said in the past that they feel that getting down and looking from the model's point of view gets players more personally invested in the game.

I disagree. But I'm old and don't really want to have to stoop or bend over any more than I have too.

As for your rules,
I'm not sold on them. Flanks matter on vehicles. Infantry models are able to quickly turn and face the attack so being shot from the front or back makes "less" difference. Vehicles are slower to react so it is possible to hit them on the softer sides.

Of course, if people really want to keep vehicle facings in there, there's no particular reason that can't work. Just count the vehicle's Toughness as one point lower if the shot is coming from the rear.

So I'm curious. How would things like Armourbane, Fleshbane, and Melta work with this? Melta and Armourbane do nothing against Wounds and are designed for the sole purpose of penetration (giggety).

Edit: Deleted.

Edit: Deleted.

 insaniak wrote:
Any thoughts? Any obvious problems with this that I might have missed?

Type:Mechanical - Immune to Fleshbane and Poison attacks. Some obvious MCs and all vehicles moved to this type. Name is more accurate than "Vehicle" since some Walkers are dubious as vehicles.
Armourbane - Same mechanic as poison, but for vehicles and mechs.
Lance - Treats toughness 9 and 10 as 8.
Melta - +2 strength at half range.
Tank Hunter - well... it affects the to-wound roll and nothing else.
Venerable - don't know about this one... 5+ to convert penetrating to glancing?

I think a lot of the problems with vehicles could be solved simply by giving them armor saves. A big part of their fragility is that with non-vehicle models, three rolls are made: to hit, to wound, and a save. With vehicles, it's often just the first two. There's cover, of course, but then infantry with a 5+ save is still pretty fragile. If vehicles had armor saves, subject to AP, then that could give them an extra layer of protection. A penetrating hit causing an explosion would still allow for one-shot kills, but they would be rarer. 4+ could be standard, with 3+ for tanks. That would cut down on the instances of vehicles being glanced to death by what should be mainly anti-infantry weapons. You could even have different saves, depending on the siding, to keep that tactical aspect alive.

 Mahtamori wrote:

Type:Mechanical - Immune to Fleshbane and Poison attacks. Some obvious MCs and all vehicles moved to this type. Name is more accurate than "Vehicle" since some Walkers are dubious as vehicles.
Armourbane - Same mechanic as poison, but for vehicles and mechs.
Lance - Treats toughness 9 and 10 as 8.
Melta - +2 strength at half range.
Tank Hunter - well... it affects the to-wound roll and nothing else.
Venerable - don't know about this one... 5+ to convert penetrating to glancing?

Armourbane is essentially just Melta without a range restriction, so I would be inclined to go the same +2S. And Venerable doesn't need to change.


Otherwise, though, that list looks good.

 insaniak wrote:

 Mahtamori wrote:

Type:Mechanical - Immune to Fleshbane and Poison attacks. Some obvious MCs and all vehicles moved to this type. Name is more accurate than "Vehicle" since some Walkers are dubious as vehicles.
Armourbane - Same mechanic as poison, but for vehicles and mechs.
Lance - Treats toughness 9 and 10 as 8.
Melta - +2 strength at half range.
Tank Hunter - well... it affects the to-wound roll and nothing else.
Venerable - don't know about this one... 5+ to convert penetrating to glancing?

Armourbane is essentially just Melta without a range restriction, so I would be inclined to go the same +2S. And Venerable doesn't need to change.


Otherwise, though, that list looks good.

I kind of like how armorbane weapons differ from meltas, but then again. A chainfist might wound a vehicle with less than like a 4+, with S8+. Maybe a reroll to-wound might work for armorbane? Also, how about monstrous creatures hitting "vehicles" (well, Mechanicals)? Did they only use 2d6 Aror pens in 5th? I don't completely recall

 LlamaAgility wrote:
I kind of like how armorbane weapons differ from meltas, but then again.

Yeah, it might have been nice for Armourbane to be more different from melta, but part of my aim here was to not change more rules than are actually necessary. So rules that started out similar should stay similar, to keep things straight.

Also, how about monstrous creatures hitting "vehicles" (well, Mechanicals)? Did they only use 2d6 Aror pens in 5th? I don't completely recall

Yeah, 6th edition replaced the 2D6 with Smash, which still works just fine under this system.

I don't really see the point of this. You want to avoid having two different damage mechanics, but then you go back and add the damage table and different "quality" levels for wounds. So you've got a system that's almost as complicated as the current one, but a lot less realistic.

The point was simply to replace armour penetration with the same wound process as everything else uses. So yes, it's nearly as complicated as it was to start with, because it's only swapping out that one mechanic.

And, really, I'm not seeing or as any less realistic, given that riptides, wraithknights and necrons all use the Wound characteristic as it is.

Adding more special rules and changing a lot of things is making this a lot more complicated, IMO.
Like that "Mechanical"-thing, which is just adding "poisons and snipers don't work on it, but it has a toughness value, but it is wounded by meltaguns and armorbane, even if it has a toughness..."

 LlamaAgility wrote:
Adding more special rules and changing a lot of things is making this a lot more complicated, IMO.
Like that "Mechanical"-thing, which is just adding "poisons and snipers don't work on it, but it has a toughness value, but it is wounded by meltaguns and armorbane, even if it has a toughness..."

Well, yes, if you deliberately try to make it more complicated than it actually is, it will look complicated. Under the current rules, Armourbane affects vehicles, and Fleshbane affects everything else. Under the proposed system, Armourbane affects mechanicals, and Fleshbane affects everything else. Not exactly rocket science.

As I said earlier, I don't really see a need for vehicles to be immune to Snipers or poison. Changing melta and Armourbane is necessary though, since their special effects specifically apply to armour penetration. That's not adding extra rules, it's just changing the existing rules as necessary to let them continue to function.

The change to Fleshbane and the 'mechanical' tag are a logical extension of that, since it doesn't make a lot of sense for Flashbane to affect vehicles. And that mechanical tag could then also be applied to things like Necrons that don't have organic parts, if people wanted to get really carried away with the whole thing.

 insaniak wrote:

 LlamaAgility wrote:
Adding more special rules and changing a lot of things is making this a lot more complicated, IMO.
Like that "Mechanical"-thing, which is just adding "poisons and snipers don't work on it, but it has a toughness value, but it is wounded by meltaguns and armorbane, even if it has a toughness..."

Well, yes, if you deliberately try to make it more complicated than it actually is, it will look complicated. Under the current rules, Armourbane affects vehicles, and Fleshbane affects everything else. Under the proposed system, Armourbane affects mechanicals, and Fleshbane affects everything else. Not exactly rocket science.

As I said earlier, I don't really see a need for vehicles to be immune to Snipers or poison. Changing melta and Armourbane is necessary though, since their special effects specifically apply to armour penetration. That's not adding extra rules, it's just changing the existing rules as necessary to let them continue to function.

The change to Fleshbane and the 'mechanical' tag are a logical extension of that, since it doesn't make a lot of sense for Flashbane to affect vehicles. And that mechanical tag could then also be applied to things like Necrons that don't have organic parts, if people wanted to get really carried away with the whole thing.

Also doesn't make much sense for a sniper rifle or a poison weapon to damage a tank more easily than some dedicated anti-armour weapons.

I disagree it just requires more abstraction.
A sniper could represent aiming for a weak point or turbo penetrator rounds.
Poison could easily jut be highly corrosive.

Abstractions like that is a slippery slope. You could cram just about anything in there with sufficient trak-science. Also, corrosive is a universal solvent and usually flesh is a large degree more susceptible to it than metals per cubic feet, meaning something that's acidic poison 4+ on a vehicle would probably be acidic poison 2+ instant death on a fleshling (or you could just say S8 AP2).

The reason for a distinction between Fleshbane, Armourbane and Poison is that they make a clear distinction between roles.

Essentially Insaniak's system isn't more complicated, it's actually a whole lot easier and requires in general fewer rolls.

insaniak: is penetration results really necessary? Also, rending needs to be dealt with (or snipers need to be dealt with).
Maybe vehicles need a few armour saves as well.

 Mahtamori wrote:
insaniak: is penetration results really necessary? Also, rending needs to be dealt with (or snipers need to be dealt with).
Maybe vehicles need a few armour saves as well.

I think the disctinction between Pens and Glances is still required, otherwise you need to overhaul AP1 and AP2 weapons, and anything else that directly affects damage rolls from Pens.

Armour saves are a fairly huge thing I had overlooked though... If armour pen switches to the normal S vs T wounding, then they should certainly also have a save. To keep the switchover simple, I would go with a similar direct correlation to the one I used to switch armour to Toughness... Just call anything that currently has armour 14 a 2+ save, armour 13 becomes a 3+ and so on down to armour 10 as a 6+.

If you use the '-1 Toughness on rear armour' idea, you could also deduct one from the armour save.


In a fully fleshed out system, there is no reason that Toughness and Armour have to directl correlate... A battlewagon, for example, could be a high Toughness, but have a lower armour save to represent its ramshackle construction. But I think that's getting a little too detailed for a set of house rules, and woudl mean re-writing each vehicle individually. Keeping to the simple 'armour 14 become T10 and a 2+ save' is something that can be applied immediately to every vehicle, and covers any new vehicles added to the game.

 insaniak wrote:
As I said earlier, I don't really see a need for vehicles to be immune to Snipers or poison.

Because otherwise you make snipers way too effective as tank killers. A lascannon wounds "AV 14" on a 5+, while a sniper wounds it on a 4+. So the guy with a scoped lasgun is a bigger threat to a Land Raider than a dedicated heavy anti-tank weapon, even though in reality the sniper has to aim for tiny weak spots like external sensor bits (and won't penetrate armor under any circumstances) while the lascannon is capable of burning through frontal armor and wrecking everything inside. What you're left with is the completely absurd situation where everyone drops anti-tank units from their list and all you have is giant blobs of ratlings and sniper kroot wiping tank armies off the table.