pm713 wrote:
Seems okay. I'd change 3 to half full speed.

7 seems like it does a bit too much against some MC's so they might need more wounds or something.

 NorseSig wrote:

pm713 wrote:
Seems okay. I'd change 3 to half full speed.

7 seems like it does a bit too much against some MC's so they might need more wounds or something.

No they don't. They already get more wounds than an equivalent vehicle has HP. I must say I am not a fan of the current system or anything like it. I think vehicles should just lose the chart all together. Move over to wounds, toughness and saves, but have a few rules that distinguish them from MCs so the current anti-vehicle weapons work against them and anti-MC stuff doesn't. It is a harder fix, but I feel it would be better overall. I feel the current vehicle rules tries to hard (and fails miserably) in trying to inject realism into a game where it really isn't needed. Always had a problem with a vehicle being made useless with a single hit and a creature with organs and such able to outlast just about anything. The vehicle damage chart imo has been the entire problem. Why not just get rid of the problem?

 Yarium wrote:
My proposal is this:

Make everything toughness values and armour saves.

Multi-wound models suffer a "critical hit" if the weapon didn't allow an armour save (AP of the weapon beats their armour, doesn't count cover saves or invulnerable saves, just armour saves). Critical Hits roll on a random table similar to what penetrating hits do now.

So you can try to glance out a vehicle or monstrous creature, but you won't reduce its combat effectiveness as you do so. If you hit them with actual anti-tank stuff though, you'll inflict lasting damage. Models with Eternal Warrior can't be instant death'd and don't suffer critical hits. Weapons with Instant Death add a bonus to the critical hit table.

pm713 wrote:
Which doesn't work very well with lower wound MC's because they'll have an incredibly fast drop in performance. It's worth remembering that while AoS monsters lose power with wounds they have a lot more wounds.

 krodarklorr wrote:

pm713 wrote:
Which doesn't work very well with lower wound MC's because they'll have an incredibly fast drop in performance. It's worth remembering that while AoS monsters lose power with wounds they have a lot more wounds.

And whose to say that with 8th edition 40k, this unified vehicle/monster unit type won't have a lot more wounds? I'd certainly be okay with it.

Martel732 wrote:
Hey, if lascannons go back to 2D6 wounds, I'd be all for it.

 Galef wrote:
The one thing I have never seen GW with 40K is to release a new edition that completely invalidates existing codices.

I heard this happened when Rogue Trader became 40K, but I was too young to play back then.
The closest 2 examples I can think of is A) when 40K introduced Hull Points they had to release an FAQ to introduce the new stat to each individual vehicle. I really don't see them doing this again, since it would mean "changing" the exisit stat, rather than "adding" a new one.
And B) Age of Sigmar, and we know how that went for GW

So assuming GW wants to keep making money on the dozens and dozens of Codices and sub-faction books released in the past 2 years, it is a VERY safe bet that 8th edition will keep these existing books in circulation and valid.

Introducing a Damage chart (either a shared one or separate formt he vehicle one) for MCs and GMCs is no only a good idea to balance with vehicles, but is the most LIKELY of all the changes propose. If they change at all, that is.

-

 krodarklorr wrote:

Well, you are probably right. In which case, nothing significant can ever really change in 40k, and it continues in a downward spiral. If that's the case, so be it. I can make a pretty penny off my models.

 Galef wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:

Well, you are probably right. In which case, nothing significant can ever really change in 40k, and it continues in a downward spiral. If that's the case, so be it. I can make a pretty penny off my models.

That doesn't mean that significant change is not possible, it just means that core rules changes will be limited to the parameters of the existing rules, stats, etc of Codices. So a Damage chart applying anytime an MC/GC takes a wound is entirely do-able. Or making weapon rules like "Melta" and "Ordinance" do D3 wounds to MCs. Plenty of big changes can be made using the "structure" that exists.

Take 6th to 7th psychic powers for example: In 6th, Psykers had Mastery Level to determine how many powers they could roll for and cast. 7th ed used this existing stat and turned it into the number of dice a Psyker generated each turn. We all know how dramatic the change was to add a Psychic Phase, and whether you like it, or think it's a mess, GW made the change without needing to alter the stats or anything for existing Psykers.

-

 krodarklorr wrote:

Well, they'd better make some ground-breaking changes. The game currently could stand a complete rebuild, like AoS.

 Yarium wrote:
I do believe that when they made the change to vehicles having Hull Points, they included it as an appendix in the core rulebook. That's when we learned that Land Speeders had 2 Hull Points, Rhino's 3 HP, and a Land Raider had 4. Was very surprised to see Defilers having 4HP at that time too. In any case, it filled a whole of 4 pages, and that's including all the Sisters of Battle vehicles too!

 Galef wrote:

 Yarium wrote:
I do believe that when they made the change to vehicles having Hull Points, they included it as an appendix in the core rulebook. That's when we learned that Land Speeders had 2 Hull Points, Rhino's 3 HP, and a Land Raider had 4. Was very surprised to see Defilers having 4HP at that time too. In any case, it filled a whole of 4 pages, and that's including all the Sisters of Battle vehicles too!

And that was great at the time because it just added a stat to existing models that was easy to look up. However there are so many more units now, so it would probably more than 4 pages.
"Changing" AV to Toughness + Armour save would be cool, but VERY confusing to new players, which is why I hope GW finds a smart way to update the core rules that allows exisiting PRINTED codices to remain valid.

-