40K: Scrap The Vehicle & Monstrous Creature Rules

The Warhammer 40k Vehicle & Monstrous Creatures rules need some tweaks. Fortunately, Games Workshop already has the answer…

When comparing Monstrous Creatures to Vehicles, there are some are some…issues. In game turns vehicles are pretty underpowered compared to MCs. Think about it, one works at optimal performance no matter how much damage it’s taken until it’s dead and the other… it can get killed in one lucky shot, lose weapons, and just become less effective over the course of a battle. When Hull Points were introduced it seemed to be a good fix at the time. But, if you remember what life was like before Hull Points  we had the reign of the “unkillable Falcon” and before that we had vehicle death traps. It seems like getting the balance right for vehicles has never been perfect.

Oh and don’t think for a second that MC are perfect either. Multi-wound models have their issues, too. And depending on how you use Strength D weapons (and which house rules you’re using) they can either be awesome or killed in one hit. Many of my Carnifexes have also been the victim of the Insta-death melee weapons (stupid lucky Dire Avenger Exarch).

Pour one out for my homie.

But the good news is that Games Workshop already has the answer. But it might not be in the place you were expecting: Age of Sigmar.

Yeah. I said it…Hear me out though! The way multi-wound models work in AoS actually works incredibly well – and it would apply to both Monstrous Creatures AND vehicles. Here is an example:

This is the profile for the Lord-Celestant on Stardrake. You can view the full one HERE. But look at the damage table and tell me it doesn’t make a lot of sense. The more damage the creature takes, the less effective it becomes! Now, it’s a tough cookie with 16 wounds and a respectable 3+ save. But it’s not invincible warbeast.

I think that this type of profile would work perfect for Dreadnoughts AND Carnifexes. And it would even help clear up some of the confusion on “vehicles” like the Stormsurge which is (somehow) not a vehicle but rather a Gargantuan Creature (which is just a Monstrous Creature on Steroids). I think this is the way things are moving, at least if concepts like AP are going away and armor save mods are coming back. This also opens up the opportunity for weapons to do different amounts of damage.

 

Here is a picture from the Basic Weapons from Shadow War: Armageddon. I’m not saying 8th needs to incorporate ALL the rules, but I think a blending of the multi-wounds models from AoS and weapon stats from 40k 2nd/SW:Armageddon would be a pretty good mix! And hey, we’ve already seen that it wouldn’t take a ton of work from GW to whip-up some Warscrolls for 40k units. Personally, I’d love to see AV go away and a move to toughness to for ALL vehicles (not just the random xenos ones – looking at you Stormsurge). Couple this with damage values added to weapons and the multi-wound mechanic and it could work pretty well.

A move to this system would also force players to be smarter with their MCs. And let’s be honest, it would nerf Flying Monstrous Creatures a bit – which isn’t a bad thing. Does this have some negatives? Yes, unfortunately. It does blur the line between MCs and vehicles quite a bit. Mechanically they would function the same. That means GW would probably need to go back to the design board and re-work their combat roles and give their profiles a good, hard look. I don’t know what that process would entail, but I firmly believe that if it was done with care, and the entire ruleset was taken into account (ie, how guns and melee weapon damages work along with their armor mods), we could end up with a really amazing system for vehicles & MCs.

I really don’t want to return to the days of the “Unkillable Falcon” and I really don’t think the days of “transport deathtraps” was a good time. I’m hopeful that 8th will address this issue and find a good middle ground. Right now, the best transport in the game is a “disposable” Drop Pod and FMCs go from 100% effective to dead if they fail a grounding check.  The damage table is a solution to the problem that has existed for a long time. So bring the damage table from AoS to 40k because it works. Just don’t bring it over in a vacuum!

 

So what’s your take on the AoS Damage Table? Do you think it would work for “fixing” vehicles and MCs? Or do you have another idea?

  • Kinsman

    Good. Those old rules were jank.

  • thereturnofsuppuppers

    contemporary game design pls

  • Ronin

    I’m on board (pun intended).

  • Tristan Smith

    Oh good God no. I loathe every rumoured change for 8th so far. Vehicles pretty much act that way IRL. Either your gun can kill it, and likely will, or it can’t. This kind of thing will allow lasguns to kill land raiders, or require restrictions on what certain guns can wound, thus creating a system as complicated as now but without any differentiation between living beings and tanks.

    • Xodis

      No it won’t. The S/T factor that is supposedly staying would prevent that. A STR 3 weapon shouldn’t harm what will possibly be a T8+ tank.

      • Tristan Smith

        I guess I should read more closely eh? I still don’t like the idea thematically, but thanks for addressing one of my concerns.

        • Xodis

          No problem, we all have concerns when the edition changes, I’m just more optimistic than most here lol

      • Karru

        And if that system is implemented, I would love to see how your average army would be able to cause 50+ Toughness 8 wounds during the game since on average you have 5+ vehicles on board for one side and even basic tanks are supposed to have double digit wounds.

        Considering that people already have problems with Toughness 8, 6 wounded model, I’d love to see how people suddenly find absolute “salvation” from this change.

        • Xodis

          Chances are Missiles and Lascannon equivalent will do multiple wounds along with dropping the save to a normal amount, so it should be rather easy with focused fire. Also with the depletion of HPs on vehicle the Toughness rating could drop making it susceptible to small arms weapons, which makes sense from a fluffy POV as well.

          • Karru

            You do realise that it will go the route of AoS, right? Missile Launchers and Lascannons would do D3/D6 wounds, meaning you would need 3 Lascannon hits to kill one 10 wound vehicle on average. That would be 75pts worth of weapons to kill a freaking Rhino. How is that a fix?

            It’s not like they would make Lascannons and such do fixed amount of damage, because that would be waaaaay to good for GW. They do love their RNG a bit too much to allow that.

            Also, I would still like to remind you that people are having problems with 6 wounded Toughness 8 dude right now. Even with degrading stats, they would have to somehow kill 5+ of those things.

            The reason this system doesn’t work nearly as well in 40k than it does in AoS is purely based on the fact that Monsters in AoS are relatively rare and expensive. For a price of one monster, you can usually get more bang for your buck with regular units, characters and combos. In 40k, especially with S/T staying, it isn’t nearly as “easy”. Transports are extremely common and those things getting 10+ wounds each would mean disaster for many armies. How are Orks supposed to deal with 8 Rhinos rushing at them? How about Tyranids? How about if a Guard Army decides to take a parking lot? Fitting 9+ Leman Russes into a 1850pts game isn’t hard for them.

          • Xodis

            It’s a Fix because maybe a Rhino will last longer than 1 turn, I mean it actually IS a tank. Secondly you’re still forgetting about the better Anti Tank weapons like anything called “Melta” that probably will end up doing 2d6 to tanks.
            I would also still remind you that the current 40K rules are completely jacked up which is why the game is looking at a possible being “Sigmard” in the first place. Most of those having ridiculous 2+ invul saves, rerolling invul saves, etc… adding to the ridiculousness.
            The reason why it COULD work in 40K is because while AoS has a low amount of monsters, it also has a low amount of weapons that cause massive wounds. 40K is the opposite in both regards, having a large number of high T creatures and a high number of weaponry that can take them out. Also weaponry might not have a cost meaning a Devastator squad of Heavy Bolters could cost the same as a Squad of Lascannons.

          • Karru

            Weaponry not costing points? Now that would just kill 40k outright. We already have problems with Grav and other similar weaponry being too cheap for their own good and now you want them be free? Why not just remove 40k completely at that point?

            You seem to expect that GW can be competent. Seriously, look at their track record. It’s not looking good, they don’t do anything that is required of a professional development team. If they made EVERYTHING free, it would spell doom for the game. One of the rarest things that keep armies like SM, Tau and Eldar in check is their upgrades. I mean, we saw what happened when Ad Mech got a formation that gives them free upgrades and what SM got when their Transports became free. Nothing good, if you didn’t follow.

            Also, I noticed that you share the same idiotic logic that the design team has. If something is weak, make it ridiculously tougher. Now that thing is too ridiculous, time to make weapons extremely powerful. Now those weapons are too powerful, time to make things tougher again!

            This has always been the problem with GW. They keep scaling things up, trying to one-up their broken things with more broken things. What’s the point of playing a game that ends on the first turn because the other dude got lucky and won the roll off for the first turn and wiped 66% of your army in massed, extremely powerful fire?

          • Xodis

            If weapons = Points is what makes 40K for you then I can see your problem with the idea, but 40K is a lot more than that to me.

            GWs track record with the new boss its actually really good IMO. AoS is a fun game, the “board games” that come out to support it were fun as well. Then we had the General’s Handbook which gave the “I need points for balance” crowd exactly what they want and its much more balanced than 40K has ever been since I started playing. Also you cant really compare a game that is designed to charge you points for everything, then getting formations where things come free, to a game that is designed so the minor choices of weaponry are free, that is asinine.
            Its not idiotic its called balance, the Weak must become cheap or strong; The strong must become expensive or weak, and when everything meets in the middle we will have a better game for it. Sure in the past GW went to extremes, but it still doesn’t change the fact that it needs to happen to have any semblance of balance.
            Your analogy is exactly what I’m saying needs to be prevented and none of the ideas I have offered up would lead to the current situation that is exactly as you typed it.

          • Karru

            If they made upgrades free then tell me, why would I ever take a Power Sword instead of a Fist? Why would I ever take a Plasma Gun instead of a Grav Gun? Why Would I ever take a Lascannon instead of a Missile Launcher?

            If the only price you pay is the base squad, it makes so many weapons completely obsolete. The whole point of the upgrade costs is to have a choice. You have to choose between the strongest weapon that is more expensive or you take the weaker weapon that is more numerous.

            That has been one of the many problems I had with AoS. There is no “choice” in that game. Why wouldn’t I take the special weapon into the unit? It’s ALWAYS better than the weapon they carry normally and it doesn’t cost anything, so why would I leave it home? There is no choice there. It’s like should I crawl home or walk?

            Once again you expect GW to be competent. That is simply not true. GW isn’t competent. When it comes to releases, it’s like throwing darts blind. Something will hit the board, but most will miss. They have said it themselves, they have limited playtesting capabilities and it shows. They take their old rules, add something “new” into them and throw it at the players, hoping it will be a hit. As we have seen with Tyranids, Orks, Dark Eldar, Grey Knights, Chaos Space Marines and Blood Angels, it doesn’t work very well.

            A professional team would do something about the lack of playtesting. They would either commit more resources into it to make sure everything works out. The other solution if they don’t have the resources to do it within the house is to reach outside. Take input from people that actually play the game. People that actually know how the game works and plays.

            I have always said, GW should always playtest their rules on their customers BEFORE they release the game. Before they put something into print, they make a two day event in Warhammer World where something like 5-10 of their staff will be playing with the new rules. Anyone can come and challenge them and give them input regarding the rules. They will then see how bad or broken their rules are so they can fix them.

            Finally, you are still proposing to continue the arms race. The same thing that destroyed 40k to begin with. They made everything stronger and/or tougher. This lead to Alpha Strike armies being the kings of 40k. Now you want to add to that by making weapons do more damage while some things get tougher.

          • Xodis

            Why take different weapons? Different weapon Profiles! Its pretty simple again. I know you think AoS made weapon choice obsolete but we had this conversation before and showed that you were remembering it wrong, and that there actually IS a reason to each weapon. Plasma could have a -2 to Armor saves with a Str of 6 and a Grav gun could ignore all armor saves but only have a STR of 2 or 3 of whatever the point was of grav before it broke the game.
            If your argument is GW is incompetent, than thats on you, why are you even here arguing about what they should do if you already think they will ruin it?
            Its not an arms race like I said, its a re-balancing. WHFB was broken as well and AoS brought it to its current much better balanced state. That can work for 40K as well.

          • Karru

            AoS didn’t bring “balance” to WHFB since they are not the same game. That’s like saying Shadow War: Armageddon will bring balance to 40k.

            Also, there is one major point you seem to ignore. Thus far GW has said that they will try to avoid “major” changes in the game. This does sound like they wouldn’t touch the weapons too much. This in turn leads to weapons remaining the same, except they might do more wounds and instead of AP, they get Rending.

            I highly doubt that GW wants to bring down the power level of their favourite faction, so Grav will most likely remain as the most broken weapon in the game, next to Scatter Lasers.

            So to make it more clear, let’s compare some weapons how they would be in Age of the Emperor most likely:

            Plasma Cannon: Str 7, Rending -4, D6 hits. Might still have Gets Hot, but might be too confusing for people, so I won’t count it right now.

            Heavy Bolter: Str 5, Rending -2, 3 shots

            These two weapons are available to many SM squads. Now, why would I take the Heavy Bolter over a Plasma Cannon? Heavy Bolter gets 3 shots at strength 5 and -2 Rending. Plasma Cannon gets double the rending and on average 1 more shots at +2 strength.

            Give me a situation where I would ever take the Heavy Bolter over the Plasma Cannon? Right now it’s obvious why I would take the Heavy Bolter over the Plasma Cannon. Plasma Cannon costs 15pts while the Heavy Bolter costs 10. Plasma Cannon also fires a Blast right now which usually only covers 2-3 dudes, meaning it gets less hits. Heavy Bolter on the other hand has its solid 5 shots and can even damage some Transports from the front.

            All these rule changes come and boom, Heavy Bolter is utterly useless. One would never take it over the Plasma Cannon. Argument that won’t work here by the way is “GW will surely balance those weapons out”. Why won’t it work? Just look at the GW track record regarding these things and you’ll know.

            Anyway, I see no point in going on with this argument any more. I clearly can’t grasp your logic and you can’t grasp mine so we just have to agree to disagree. I have already given up hope on a better future for 40k and chosen to stick with the good old days or look for other games.

          • Xodis

            In a way it did, because AoS is the successor to WHFB, where as SW:A is not a successor but just a related game to 40K.

            In your example, yes the Plasma Cannon is clearly superior…but what if the HB did 5 shots? That alone would put both weapons on equal footing and is quite simple. This is my whole point though, you are assuming that 40K will be unbalanced simply because it is GW, and you have no faith in them. Meaning your argument is already biased against them as is your assumptions. Its why you have this ridiculous scenario between the PC and HB when it was as easy as my “5 shots” to balance them. As a point though, the HB is already useless and has been since 5e when I started playing.

            Again, I see what you are saying, I just disagree. Our points are not rocket science so it assuming one another cant grasp it is rather insulting.

          • The Rout

            Needed to chirp in here. You would take a power sword because it would likely have more attacks, or a re-roll of 1s or any other number of benefits in comparison to the powerfist. Powerfists may also have some version of “always strikes last” some other such alteration

            Contrary to popular belief not all damage in AoS is random, a lot of it is fixed or based on the damage table mentioned above in the case of monsters.

            I’m not saying i want points ocsts for upgrades to go away but i AM saying that it could work if done correctly. I think me and you have discussed AoS before and reading your messages here just shows that you still havent tried AoS. Maybe you should try some of that playtesting your such a big fan of BEFORE posting the same old “i hate GW and everyone who doesnt is stupid” drivel again.

          • Karru

            First of all yes, I haven’t tried AoS yet because no one in my area plays it, I don’t have an army for it and the closest place to try it is a good long ride away.

            Secondly, you are using the magic word here, “it could work if done correctly”. That works with everything GW has ever done, including 7th edition and every single release that has been done to it. Would you like to tell me once again how perfect 7th edition is? Oh wait, it isn’t. It’s a complex mess of rules that give rules and other bs that made the game as a whole pretty bad experience.

            Also, I still don’t get it why people want to AoS games when they already have one. It just doesn’t make any sense beyond the “I want to force you to like the game I like, even if it means I have to take away the game you like”.

            Even AoS has lots of problems. Undead factions outside Flesh Eaters is in a pretty bad shape because they rely on summoning which was nerfed to the ground hard in the General’s Handbook (not a bad thing since it was very broken in the first place before GHB). All other factions that have yet to get their updates are also in a pretty bad shape, if not because they lack the models to even play them, they just don’t have the rules to be on an even ground with the factions that got their updates.

            “They’ll get there” I hear one say. Yes, they will get there, but they would have done it already if they had done the releases correctly. See, the magic word appears!

            The key issue here is lack of confidence. Unlike you and many others, I do my research. I look into the past releases of GW and analyse it. I look for any improvements in quality and make all my predictions based on that. Trust me, the moment GW proves me totally wrong and releases a ruleset that has all things I like covered, mostly meaning that things are reflected well in both rules and model-wise and the game offers ways to make your own narrative and decisions show in the game through many different options that allow you to create something almost completely unique, I will without a doubt admit I am wrong.

            For example, when Traitor Legions book was released, I was happy. Even with the crappy 6th edition CSM codex, they book was still nice. While it made many units obsolete and some of the Legions were basically useless, it still gave the tools to make your collections unique. I defended that book against those that truly hate everything GW does. When that book was released, I admitted being wrong.

            GW lost my trust when they released AoS and removed Fantasy. GW has shown that they are willing to do very, very foolish things without realising how dumb they actually are. AoS is in a good state right now compared to release, but that still doesn’t change the fact that they replaced WHFB with the AoS ruleset (again, the launch version of AoS is different compared to the post-GHB).

          • Marco Marantz

            thing is it takes 3 lascannons to kill a Rhino now…3HP. If you commit a unit, they all have to fire. Technically it might only take a single lascannon to roll a 6 -explodes but even with 3 pens you only have a 50% chance to blow up up a rhino so you really need to commit 3 lascannons to ensure a kill. (providing all shots hit)

          • Karru

            Actually, a Lascannon can kill a Rhino on a 5+ if it penetrates. That isn’t the problem here. Against light vehicles like Rhinos, Trukks and even Wave Serpents you use Autocannons. Those things have lots of shots and have a chance to immobilise or wreck the vehicle.

            The proposed system would either make Autocannons basically obsolete or they would make Bolters way too powerful. Autocannon is Strength 7, the average Toughness of vehicles should be around 8 to make sure that Lasguns and Bolters don’t kill something like a Land Raider. Now, that Autocannon may not do extra damage, since it has more shots than a Missile Launcher for example. That Autocannon would need 5’s to wound a Rhino. A Rhino that has 10+ wounds. The amount of Autocannons required to take down a single vehicle would be ridiculous.

          • Marco Marantz

            A lascannon does not kill a rhino on a 5 in 7th Ed. You need to roll a 7 for an explodes result. Weapons will do multiple wounds so an autocannon will probably do D3, a lascannon D6. I dont use autocannons period. They are garbage. Only 2 attacks with a 50% chance to glance AV11. You need alot of autocannons to take out vehicles at present anyway. Vs a T:8 vehicle, if you hit with both shots you have a 66% chance to cause D3 wounds. Granted vehicles will have more HPs (wounds) you are likely no worse off than you are now. It depends if GW are just numpties and multiply all HPx3 or 3.33

          • Karru

            You are absolutely right about the Lascannon thing on the damage chart, I always forget that we use a modified chart where 6 is an explosion, but otherwise it’s the same chart.

            I highly doubt that Autocannon would do D3 wounds. That will be saved for Krak Missiles most likely. Autocannon will just have more shots compared to the Missile to “make it more appealing”.

            Seriously, Autocannon is garbage because it has a 50% chance to glance? You do realise that it has a 33% to penetrate the AV11 vehicle, after which it has the potential to stop the thing on it’s tracks either through immobilising OR stunning it. Also, you would require 6 Autocannon hits on average to Wreck a AV11 vehicle as they have 3 Hull Points. That is the output of 3 Autocannons, which costs 30pts for Guard as opposed to 60pts from Lascannons which is also the required amount to Wreck a vehicle.

            Meanwhile in Age of the Emperor, the average amount of Autocannon required to take down a Tank with 10+ wounds would be a lot more. Considering that those tanks would still have to be Toughness 8 and we already established that Krak Missile will be the one that causes D3 wounds and Autocannons only do 1 but shoot more, at Strength 7 has a 33% to wound it. We can also expect that they have a save of some sort and Autocannon would modify that save by 2- or -3, which means that some of those wound will be save. Let’s just say that you would require more than 3 Autocannons to actually stop a vehicle coming at you.

            The problem is that this system will make vehicles unstoppable or useless. Depending on the “damages” it will suffer as it takes damage, either losing movement completely after it reaches something like half way point or just turns into a crawling hunk of metal, or it will just move normally until it is completely destroyed and just loses Toughness as it takes damage.

            This means that vehicles won’t either die before they have done all the damage they need to OR they won’t be able to do anything at all during the game. Basically the new system encourages more and more Alpha Strike playstyle which I personally don’t prefer at all. I don’t know why so many are for the system.

            A double digit wound system would require even stronger and damaging weapons to be brought to bear so it would just encourage people to spam those weapons and we have seen what happens to a game when people are given weapons capable of wiping the enemy off the table in just one turn of playing.

        • Frank O’Donnell

          But it would make marines so much better with all those free tanks they get & isn’t that what the games about ?

          • Dragon2928

            I honestly expect 8th, if it goes so far as to completely redesign MC/Vehicle rules and profiles to completely invalidate all the existing formations and books. We’ll probably wind up with a complete set of “warscroll” equivalents to go with the new edition.

        • Brettila

          Many weapons will do multiple wounds. All specials and heavies for instance.

          • Karru

            Yes, just like AoS. D3 or D6 extra wounds. I’d love to see many times a Rhino’s points will be paid over before it dies.

    • PrimoFederalist

      If you want to play the “IRL” game, it needs to be applied across the board. MC/GC rules are objectively better than vehicles – there are no downsides.

      Tau suites can tank dozens of wounds without worrying about having a weapon destroyed, crew shaken, etc. Meanwhile, a single melta shot can blow up a Leman Russ or a grav shot can immobilize a CC dreadnaught. It’s totally lopsided, unrealistic, and plain unfair. There is zero justifiable reason that a Tau suite with its vulnerable limbs flailing around remains fully combat effective for six wounds while a boxy, robust Leman Russ gets one-shorted.

      I think I speak for Guard players everywhere when I say I don’t care what the specifics are as lon as they’re equitable.

      • Tristan Smith

        Oh, I absolutely agree. The monstrous creature rules, and the vehicle rules for that matter, could use tweaking. I just don’t think monstrous creatures and vehicles should behave in the same manner. A spikey insect elephant should react to damage in a fundamentally different way than an M1-A1 Abrahams.

      • We have suits, I know that – but when the hell did we get suites? I need to have a word with my local Fio…

    • Drpx

      Yeah I was watching the History channel last night and they were talking about how Patton dealt with Rommel’s eleven gun land battleships through clever positioning of his giant dead elf powered kaiju. Really did their research.

      • Tristan Smith

        Damn near fell off my chair laughing, that created a great visual. Just because we have a game set in a universe with random crazy alien tech doesn’t mean people can’t want something resembling realism. Especially in regards to penetrating tank armour, something we as a species have quite a bit of experience at.

    • Iron Father Stronos

      I hear a lot of nay saying and a whole lot of no chance giving there bub, Hold off one the paragraph cry sessions until its dropped officaly. Not salty just steely.

      • Tristan Smith

        My opinion being different than yours does not constitute crying, “Bub”. Get off the high horse and engage honestly with people’s differing ideas.

        • Iron Father Stronos

          Mc Salty says “Oh good God no. I loathe every rumoured change for 8th so far.”

          that sounds an awful lot like crying. Fact-checked.

          • Tristan Smith

            Dude, if you want to discuss how your views on the subject differ from mine, or why you disagree or think I’m wrong, awesome, i love talking to people who think differently. But if all you’re interested in is ad hominem and gotcha games I’m not interested in engaging with you.

          • Iron Father Stronos

            You’re entitled to your opinion sir, but it doesn’t mean you have to share it in a teary eyed manner all over the keyboard and subsequently the internet…

          • Jooster

            Gee, you’re not pretentious at all

  • Xodis

    Totally on board with crossing vehicles and MCs however…
    -Still need to retain the AV value of different sides of the vehicle though. The front of a Vindicator is a lot different than the rear.
    -Melee against a vehicle should still be automatic.
    -With S/T staying weapons that shouldn’t harm MCs/Tanks won’t, but if it goes away there needs to be a “Tank” rule for vehicles (or even heavily armored MCs) and “Anti-Tank” special rule for Weapons to keep very silly things from happening.

    • orionburn

      I agree. You should still be “rewarded” by getting behind an enemy and getting a shot in on a weaker spot. This way weapons that would be useless against front armor still stand a chance on the rear. This way bolters could still bring down something light like a land speeder but would be completely useless against heavy armor.

      The big thing I want to see is vehicle weapons lasting longer. Either you hold off on doing a weapon destroyed until it reaches X amount of hull points (or wounds) or reduce it’s strength or number of shots fired.

      • EnTyme

        On the same note, how cool would it be if certain MCs had “facings”? That Carnifex looks pretty well-armored from behind, but that soft underbelly looks nice and vulnerable. You know, other than the massive claws and bio-guns.

      • Technically, you’re getting rewarded by not, you know, getting blasted in the face by a demolisher cannon…

        • stinkoman

          id take that reward any day 🙂

    • PrimoFederalist

      I think they should just get a mechanical/biological rule. This would fix a lot. Mechanical effected by haywire not poison and vice versa

      • Xodis

        Would also be a good idea as well. I still like the idea of certain MCs being immune to non anti-tank weaponry though.

    • Parthis

      Well, no. They don’t *need* separate AV value, they just need a way to make the front arc better.

      A simple rule on the vehicle’s page would do that just fine. 30K manages it with Flare Shields, for example.

    • Karru

      Nah, that would be waaaaaaay to complicated. It would be much better to just give them one solid Toughness value and save which doesn’t change no matter how the vehicle is placed. Don’t want to confuse people too much, considering that the current AV system causes massive headaches to people evidently.

      • Xodis

        Doesn’t have to be, even if the there were only 2 values (Front/Rear, it could be simplified.

        • Karru

          I will never understand the logic behind the wound argument.

          “AV is clunky and complicated, so it should be replaced with this wound system.”

          “Okay, how does it work, you just give vehicles a Toughness and a Wound characteristic?”

          “Yeah, but you also give them different values depending on the sides they are being shot at.”

          “Okay, so just like AV then, but how about damage? How many wounds will you give them and how will it affect them?”

          “Yes, that’s the simple part, you see you give them double digits wounds minimum and then you give EACH vehicle their own unique chart you have to follow in order to see how your vehicles is doing! See? Way easier to track AND understand than the ancient and bad AV system!”

          “Wait… So instead of having one table that you roll on in case you get a penetrating hit, you HAVE to track the number of wounds which is double digits AND you HAVE to look at a unique table FOR EACH VEHICLE?! That doesn’t make any sense. How is that more simple?”

          “Because it’s more simple and I like that rule more than the AV rule.”

          • Xodis

            It’s actually not that hard of a concept. A little symbol on the War Scroll showing a front and rear T value on vehicles to reward tactics being used against these vehicles. Then a chart like most MCs already get showing wound progression.

            All of the information will be at the players fingertips.

          • stinkoman

            so how big are these wall scrolls? standard paper size or small cards like WM? i play IG and if i have to flip through a book of wall scrolls for all my tanks, i might be a little perturbed. bring back 4th edition vehicle damage dice!!! 🙂

            or just go back to 2nd edition all together with vehicles cards. roll to hit, roll to see what you hit, roll to pen. boom weapon/hull destroyed!

          • Xodis

            All Warscrolls are a single page at its biggest.

          • Karru

            You still seem to miss the original point. The argument usually given why AV should be replaced is that. AV would be a lot more simpler since the damage done table is in one place and doesn’t change between vehicles. It’s like Stinkoman said, having to go between 6-8 different pages as an IG player because I have to check how my Tanks are doing and also having to carry 10+ D20 with me at all times when playing 40k is troublesome.

            Meanwhile, with AV I only need D6’s and look at the main rulebook for damage. Only then does the informations will be at the players fingertips.

            The Wound system works in AoS because of the rarity of monsters. Having to scroll through and track 6-8 tanks and their effects would be extremely cumbersome and time consuming.

          • BT

            And that is if you have a device to do it for you. Some folk don’t, so what do they do?

          • Xodis

            I’m not missing the point, I just completely disagree with your assessment of what is cumbersome. When everything for a single vehicle/monster is on 1 page, you have that page at your fingertips for all that you need. Also Warscrolls (if following AoS’s lead) will be printable so you dont need a ton of dice just a single pencil/pen. Also if you have 2+ of the same type of tank, it probably wont take much ingenuity to learn to combine them all to a single Warscroll for even easier tracking, leaving you with 1 Warscroll per type of tank/Monster.

          • Karru

            But why change it in the first place? The system you proposed already exists in AV and AV is better for making vehicles their own things AND not game-breaking. You want to add rules instead of reducing them.

            You say they will be placed into the same page with Monsters. That would simple be not true. I highly doubt that Tanks would suddenly only be able to attack in CC like Monsters or “Run”. They will most likely be their own page in the rulebook.

            On top of that, instead of having a single table in the rulebook, you know have one for each vehicle. Then you have their “unique” rules that they’ll most likely have that make them immune to things that kill Monsters like Poison and maybe even Snipers.

            It just doesn’t make any sense.

          • Xodis

            The system with HP already exists as well and its garbage. I’m proposing a combination that not only makes HP viable but also rewards proper tactical choices for their enemy.
            First) Some Vehicles can attack in CC and “Run”
            Second) I obviously meant they would fit on a single page like those Monsters
            Keyword “Armored” or “Tank” eliminates all those cheesy ideas you are thinking about, and could also be a the start of a great idea like “Anti- Armor” or “Piercing” keywords that separate the Anti-Personnel weapons from the Anti Vehicle ones.

            It makes sense, you just continue to look at things from a pessimistic view due to your inability to believe that GW can do anything right. I cant help you on that. AoS is great, the GH was received by the whole as being a competent upgrade and it all seems to be because of the new CEO…so we will see.

          • Karru

            There is a very good reason why I don’t believe GW can do anything right, it’s called “research” and “looking into current products”. GW has yet to show CONSISTENT flow of good rules. They randomly bring out something, like the General’s Handbook, but most rules they come up with end up being utter garbage or broken. Those that don’t fall into either usually belongs to the “meh” category. I might be pessimistic, but at least I won’t be disappointed when things turn out the way I expected them to go.

            Also, how does one make a “tactical” choice when your only real option is to flood the enemy with massed fire if you wish to stop the vehicle horde coming your way? Space Marines are currently the only army that can actually reach the rear armour of enemy vehicles before it doesn’t matter any more. No other unit in the game can appear behind the enemy on turn 1. By turn 2, the vehicles that needed to be destroyed are either hiding or already at their destination so flanking would be pointless at that point.

          • Xodis

            How long is consistent to you? My research shows a great amount of promise since AoS was released and it keeps getting better. The release of the Traitor Legions, 1kSons, etc… was only marred because the original codex is completely garbage (a fault of Old GW) and it makes no sense to release another right before 8e.

            Because its not the only choice. Had you read everything I posted, you would see an idea where after so many HPs are removed from a vehicle they could possibly lose the “Tank” or “Armored” keyword and lower the Toughness allowing small arms fire weapons to cause damage. This gives you the choice of using the heavy weapons to open up the vehicle and then allowing your regular weapons to immobilize and finish it off. This is easily done already with AoS MCs and wouldn’t take much to transfer to 40K vehicles. We also dont know how movement and range of fire will be effected, possibly making transports a much bigger advantage, along with giving other fast moving units an advantage.

          • stinkoman

            yeah, that does sound great! i think in AOS (and i dont play it) it works to have the chart as the larger things are more rare. as opposed to my IG parking lot. i would hate to have to make dry erase gaming aids (or unit cards) to track my vehicles. just pull them already.

    • BT

      I hate that a Centurion at T5 and 2 wounds is actually better off against Lascannon shots than a Dreadnaught because the Dread is forced to use vehicle rules and the Centurion isn’t. The Centurion is going to get cover saves all day long and may be buffed by psychic powers. Still haven’t seen grav weapons added to Dreads/Hellbrutes and they have been around forever.

      The AV rule has to be changed, period. Re-write it to mean any weapons less strength than the AV can’t effect the vehicle (so no roll a d6 and add the strength, just raw strength). That is the only way you will make a tank ‘bolter proof’. You also get rid of the mathhammer stuff then as well with absolutes. The simple fact is that making something a vehicle makes it weaker in the game than giving it stats.

      • Xodis

        I wouldnt mind a “Tank” keyword that can only be affected by a weapon with the “Anti-Tank” keyword as well. I also think though that after a few Lascannon or melta blasts (-7 or 8 HP) That keyword should be removed to show the openings your heavy weaponry left in the armor.

    • Koen Diepen Van

      You do have way to high hopes for GW. Whit AOS they literally murdered every aspect of maneuver out of the game. The only thing that is still there is buff ranges. And the stupid advantage you can get by mixing your units in combat. Tanks will just get one profile just so the game is easyer to play

      • Xodis

        I disagree with your assessment of AoS completely. Movement and proper unit movement can still make or break your army.

  • Deacon Ix

    Having restarted at the end of 6th after taking a break at the end of 2nd I still have a hang over that vehicles are too soft, the changes suggested above would defiantly help remedy that.

    • stinkoman

      bring back the vehicle cards from 2nd ed!

  • AnomanderRake

    Holy *bleep* don’t give us the unique table for every single vehicle/MC. That’s just making every single problem that much worse.

    Scrap the damage tables, give vehicles a T value and a save, do anything, just DON’T GIVE US AN EXTRA TABLE PER MODEL. PLEASE.

    • Parthis

      I play a lot of AoS, as well as 40 and 30K, and genuinely if there’s one thing I could take from AoS and add to 40K it’s damage tables for tanks and MCs.

      • AnomanderRake

        I will never understand why the AoS enthusiasts continue to insist that replacing one table that applies to everyone with a unique table for every single unit would be a positive step.

        In 40k if I know how a Land Speeder works I know how a Vyper works. If we get AoS-style completely unique vehicle damage tables for each vehicle and I learn how a Land Speeder works I have no information about how a Vyper works and I have to start over from scratch. Every single time I want to learn how a new unit works.

        I’m totally on board with simplifying the game, but ADDING MORE TABLES IN THE NAME OF GETTING RID OF TABLES is just stupid.

        • Parthis

          Because it works.

          Scary thought, I realise that. But it does. It’s also much more interesting to play against.

          Sometimes you don’t need to kill a unit; just weaken it enough to remove the threat.

          • Karru

            “40k has too many rules, I want to cut many of them out because there so much rules bloat!”

            “Okay, we’ll get right on that.”

            “Great, now add these 60+ new tables and extra rules!”

            “Wait… You just said you wanted to reduce rules bloat through streamlining, right?”

            “Yeah, yeah, this will fix the rules bloat, see you remove the rules I don’t like and replace them with these rules I like.”

            “But you aren’t removing rules, you are actually just adding more of them.”

            “No, you just remove the rules bloat with these rules I like!”

          • Parthis

            I know being negative on the internet is both fun and comes easily, but, there is a difference between ‘lots of rules’ and ‘lots of redundant rules’.

            I play AoS, along with 30/40K. It doesn’t have fewer rules as such, what it has is considerably more clarity.

          • Karru

            You see, what 40k does is “Standardisation”. Instead of hundreds upon hundreds of “unique” rules, they give general rules that can be used by all armies. That way, even if one doesn’t play other armies, both sides can understand what rule is being used. AoS does this lovely thing of making EVERYTHING a special rule. The same army can have 5 different rules for a shield, a freaking shield!

            When everything isn’t “unique”, it makes things go a lot smoother because one doesn’t have to continuously ask the opponent how did the Unit A’s shield work again since Unit B worked completely differently.

          • Parthis

            It’s a weak argument. Many games have nothing but unique rules and work just fine. Malifaux is a great example, and besides you know as well as I that gamers don’t stand around reading this stuff verbatim aloud. Five rules for a shield? Gamers translate that to ‘I ignore that on a 3+’.

            I know that, for example, AoS’ seraphon ignore rends. No idea what the shields are called, but I know they do, because my opponent mentioned it at the start of the game. Easy, concise, sorted. No big rule book.

            Standardisation is fine for core rules. Trying to make everything work the same way is a design trap, and 40K is perfect proof of it.

          • stinkoman

            and thats what we need. though the vehicles/MC rules are pretty clear.

    • Muninwing

      yeah… supposedly the whole battle-call for 8th 40k is “simplify”

      adding a new chart for every weapon, extra factors and considerations, and all that… is not simplification.

  • SilentPony

    I worry this’ll sour loads of Guard and Tau and Ork players even more than usual! I mean a Russ that can be chinked away by small arms fire? Riptides that go the way of the dodo from chaninswords. And Boyz in trukks? Forget ’bout it!

    • OldHat

      Small arms fire won’t be strong enough to hurt them. So it won’t sour Guard players any more than the current HP stripping crap does, which effectively neutered their vehicles at the start of 6th. I, for one, really love this new direction as it remedies the issues 5th had by making doing damage matter, but will likely fix the HP issue in that it is just too easy to strip them out.

      • orionburn

        I don’t get why people suddenly think a bolt pistol will be able to put a wound on something like a Land Raider.

        • Thomas

          They probably think the new edition will adopt the flat To Hit and To Wound rolls of AoS.

          Personally, I deeply hope that never happens.

          • EnTyme

            Or they’re only thinking linearly with fixed to-hit and to-wound rolls. Just because a weapon profile always wounds on a 4+ doesn’t mean it can damage everything on a 4+. There are defensive abilities in the game that do things like reducing the damage from any attack by 1 per attack, so only weapons that do 2+ damage can hurt them. Some models are immune to damage with less than a -1 rend. Damage in AoS is more complicated than people think.

        • Moonsaves

          Well… yeah. A bolt pistol fires explosive rounds. Reasonably sure it’d do something to a Russ’ exposed engine.

          • stinkoman

            yeah it can glance the rear armor.

        • Karru

          I don’t get people that expect GW to be competent. GW is famous for doing stupid things, just look at AoS during launch, keyword being “at launch”, not after General’s Handbook.

        • Dragon2928

          Because I remember when they released WFB 8th and a roll of a ‘6’ would wound regardless of the difference between S and T. GW is just dumb enough to try something like that in 40k, regardless of little sense it makes.
          Edit – misspelled 40k. Somehow. >.<

    • Djbz

      Errrmm Riptides CAN be run over with chainswords/Boys in trucks.
      The only thing in the game that can’t hurt them is Str 1/2.
      Which is like, what 3 or 4 things in the entire game?

      • Drpx

        Shows often Riptides ever get assaulted by Orks.

        • stinkoman

          who plays orks?

      • 301stFeinminsterArmoured

        And Rippers. Don’t forget Rippers.

    • sethmo

      There are loads of opinions here and not alot of actual people with AoS experience…..

      The system works because a rhino will not have 10 wounds like people are saying. Las guns will hit and wound on fives so its not like they will kill rhinos since most vehicles will have a 3+ save.

      You all act like tanks need some kind of super special nonsense when what needs to be done is a massive restructure of how hit/damage/save system works. AoS works because it is consistent, I can try to damage a soul grinder with archers, but I am going to have a bad time with that.

    • 301stFeinminsterArmoured

      With 2+ armour base and around 12 Wounds, I think it’ll be safe.

  • Defenestratus

    Let me think about this. So As an Eldar player, all my Str 6 weapons would be able to “wound” a land raider now?

    New Ulthwe Strike Force formation of 4x 3 dual scatter laser war walkers showing up turn one anywhere on the board then blowing up your previously impenetrable tanks?

    Sure.

    I’ll take it.

    • Walter Vining

      reasons why doing that to take is bad number 1, because scatter lasers are a thing.

    • Ronin

      It’ll probably be as reliable as trying to take out a wraithknight with heavy bolters. Plus who’s to say scatter lasers won’t get nerfed in the “General’s Handbook”? 😉

    • Thomas

      How do you even find people willing to play you?

    • Farseerer

      Did you even read the article?

    • 301stFeinminsterArmoured

      Probably, but said Land Raider would likely shrug off each of your regular hits on, say, a 4+ at the end of the Shooting Phase, unless you really hosed it down and removed it before it had a chance to roll.

      • stinkoman

        you underestimate how many str 6 guns eldar can bring. i still havent gotten over the last battle i had with eldar. there isnt a tank, save for the LR, that is save from them. unless you visit the forgeworlds .

        • 301stFeinminsterArmoured

          Right now, sure, it’s demoralizing and ridiculous, but as I’ve pointed out, they’re likely to ditch stat comparisons in favor of set target numbers and damage conversion mechanics. Look forward to tighter combats, dedicated assault units that are actually better at assault, and suboptimal weapon and unit choices that don’t leave you going, “why would I ever take that,” but rather, “just how could I make that work?”

    • 301stFeinminsterArmoured

      You still have to roll for them to come in, so there’s a nonzero chance of autoloss due to lack of models.

  • Drpx

    You mean if I drop my Knight into a 500 put game against some kid with only a few Guardsmen or tactical marines it might actually die? That doesn’t sound right…

    • Wonderdog

      Well… if its toughness 8 or something, then small arms are going to bounce right off.

      If half the stuff rumoured for 8th edition is true, I might actually come back and play some 40k again 🙂

    • Moonsaves

      Right?

    • joetwocrows

      Fair? 40K fair? Go play chess. (Tongue firmly in cheek).

      • 301stFeinminsterArmoured

        Go. No internal balance issues.

        • joetwocrows

          What, first move advantage? just null deploy…oh, wait…

          • 301stFeinminsterArmoured

            I was more referring to the differences in relative power and importance between individual pieces. In Go, each piece does the same thing and is of no more importance to the game on a systemic level than any other.

      • Drpx

        Problem with telling people to go play other games if they don’t like 40k is they tend to do exactly that.

  • John Bower

    What are they going to do about buildings though? At the moment buildings are not worth the points. They should be (but aren’t) tougher than tanks; in fact any squad in a building is worse off than in a tank, you don’t take masses of S6 wounds if a tank blows up, but you do if a building collapses. Sorry to spoil the fun but have you seen what happens to people inside an APC when it gets hit? They die, very rarely does anyone actually get out alive because… They tend to BURN to death. You actually have more chance of getting out of a bunker. Look how thick they are IRL and you see how hard they are to kill.

    A Leman Russ tank should also be incredibly hard to kill with anything short of a lascannon (right now they are but a lucky shot will do it). Buildings should NEVER take a glancing hit (it’s just not realistic), still give them Hull points by all means but only a pen should do it assuming it doesn’t destroy it. In fact if anything hits on bunkers etc. should affect the guys inside on a penetrating hit, not the bunker itself; weapons sure, but the building should just stay there.

    MC’s need to be able to be killed sometimes with a lucky grenade down the gob, or a psyker weapon; otherwise you can just charge them in and tie up a unit several times their points for the rest of the game, and that just isn’t right.

    A lascannon again should be able to ‘off’ them in a lucky single shot. There’s a lot of areas that could do with improvement in that respect. I personally think Sniper rifles suck compared to how they should work. The whole point of such weapons is to remove enemy HQ with single shots. Just because Bully Blogz the ork warboss has 3 hp’s doesn’t mean a headshot shouldn’t kill him outright.

    • Drpx

      I’ve never seen anyone take a destructible building. Either Aegis line with comm relay or sky shield landing pad for the 4++. Wouldn’t surprise me if GW swept it all under the rug like the flyer phase.

      • Erber

        Yeah the flyer phase was a dumb addition to the game. At my local club we’ve actually never even tried it because we just found it as unnessesary padding that did very little for the game as a whole. And from what I understand that seems to be the sentiment mostly everywhere. No one cares about it and no one wanted it to begin with.

      • John Bower

        Ah, but people did take them before glancing hits and Hull Points 🙁

  • Hendrik Booraem VI

    Soooo… your proposed solution for rules bloat and “I can’t stand having to memorize all those charts” is…

    add a new chart for every vehicle and monstrous creature? I… uhh… I’m not sure what to say about that. Seems kinda like you maybe don’t understand your own complaint?

    • Karru

      That’s your typical AoS fan right there. What they really are trying to say “I reeeeeally like these AoS rules and I would looooooove to see you love them too because I don’t see you playing AoS.”

      • stinkoman

        my problem with AoS inst the rules. the models, mostly stormcasts, are just not they type of fantasy i like. too OTT. in fact the new custodes are the same way. and the sisters of slience look like you can just use them in AOS with no modifications. or vice versa with the new tech dwarfs.

        WHFBs was great appeal until all the large warmachines started creeping in. Im pretty happy that WHTW captures the table setting in a decent video game.

  • Karru

    I just love the fact that people completely seem to ignore a small, very minor problem with introducing “wounds” to vehicles. On average, a game of 40k has around 5+ vehicles. My Guard army for example usually fields between 6-8 vehicles, a Chimera, 3 Armoured Sentinels, 2 Leman Russes and a Knight or Valkyrie and a Hellhound. Considering the latest rumour about “even the most basic tank having double digit wounds”, people seem to be extremely happy about the system. At the same time, I see these same people most likely agreeing that a Wraithknight is broken due to its firepower and survivability. WK is Toughness 8 and has 6 wounds. In order to avoid small arms fire damaging tanks, they need to be at least Toughness 7/8 minimum. Now those things have 10+ wounds each.

    Yep, no problems with this system at all. It’s the Wraithknight that is the problem, there would be no issues with having to deal with 50+ wounds scattered across the table on various scoring platforms. Yep, nooooothing at all.

    • Meister_Haufen

      I think the main issue with the current rules regarding MCs and vehicles is not that they are bloated but rather that they feel too stiff. I don’t play AoS but think these monster tables are awesome for vehicles and MCs alike. Yes there will be 50+ HP on the table but my gut tells me that there will be weapons doing multiple wounds on vehicles and MCs. I also think that they will include a keyword or something that prevents armored targets to be killed by weapons without a certain key word. Of course this is wishful thinking but that would greatly increase the pleasure of fielding vehicles especially.

      • Karru

        Once again someone seems to miss the biggest problem here. GW doesn’t do innovation or averages. All the multi-wound things will be RNG rolls. D3 or D6 wounds for example. That means shooting at tanks with heavier weapons is less reliable.

    • 301stFeinminsterArmoured

      Assuming that Strength, Toughness, and Initiative are going to remain in the system. If the go, and I bet they will, we will see a lot of units having ways to shrug off mundane injuries, and certain weapons are going to forgo rolling to Wound entirely. Land Raiders, Necron Vehicles, and pretty much anything standing next to a Tech-Priest are going to be nigh impossible to remove in 8th.

    • stinkoman

      my problem with a WK is that it’s less than 300 points

  • Crablezworth

    How about just fixing the damage table. The fix for mc’s is they either have to get worse as they take damage or more weaponry should be able to cause extra wounds on like a 6.

  • 301stFeinminsterArmoured

    Steam Tank would’ve been a better point of comparison.

  • Viper666

    I’M not sure this would apply well to a game of 40k. In 40k, each army have often a lot of tanks and MCs so giving them 10+ wounds with damage effects depending of how many wounds left seems a lot of to remember and a lot of tokens on the table. A simple thing to help AV would just give vehicle an armour save: we know GW will reintroduce save modifiers so vehicles would still be invulnerable to small firearms and would have some kind of save vs big guns.

  • Worth more emphasis than it gets in the article (none?) is that a realistic implication of this approach is that vehicles would not have a facing. That in & by itself is a substantial change to the game, for better or for worse.

  • Old zogwort

    How about keeping AoS for those who love AoS and just fix vehicles without killing them off :
    It isn’t that hard.

    • Drpx

      Four editions in, they’ve gotta get it right eventually.

  • stinkoman

    im not saying they should go back, but i loved vehicles and monstrous creatures in 2nd edition. damage tables, turrets flying in random directions, large amounts of wounds, super high toughness. but weapons also did multiple wounds (d6, d10, 2d12, etc). it felt way more thematic. you could get lucky and rip a carnifex apart (had a 3+ on 2d6 save with 10 wounds and toughness 9/10) with a lascanon or AC. if you were lucky enough. but back then even the players were different (not so much internet lending list building help or tourney mentality).

    would the game be so bad if they introduced different dice back into the pool? i get why they stuck with just the D6, but it seems to have been pretty limiting over the years.

  • BT

    I think GW needs to change things, but giving you more stuff to keep track of, with changing stats might be pretty hard to work in, specially if you are a mech heavy list (looking at you, IG).

    But, I will say this. As soon as they went to AV values, Dreadnaughts sucked balls. When you could glance a Dread to death (even if it is rear arc) and still give it all of the flaws a vehicle gets on the damage charts, it was made unplayable. Put it like this, if a Dreadknight, Wraithknight, or Centurion was made to be a dreadnaught and given vehicle rules, would they be as effective as they are now? I mean, even fluff-wise (if that even matters to GW), the Dread should be harder to kill than a Centurion of Dreadknight (will give the wraithknight a pass there). But rule-wise, that is not the case. But turning a Dread into a equivalent of a Wraithknight doesn’t make the rules more balanced, it just shows how bad the vehicle rules really are.

    Then this forces the escalation of weapon damage to keep up and create a new curve. So should a base infantryman have more than one wound? Should a Marine and Ork have like 3 wounds now and Necrons have like 5 (and get rid of that rezzing BS)? Would making Eldar and Guard 1 wound models be more fitting? Yay, I can watch my IG die faster than ever before! But will IG actually get a real weapon instead of a flashlight? Are bolters and catapults going to do 2 wounds each? If you change the weapons to keep up with the wounds of MCs/Vehicles, you have to figure how they will impact a squad of infantry as well. I would hate to see 3 lascannons wipe out a squad of Marines because they do multiple wounds each. The game will just devolve to lascannon fights and see who goes first is the one who wins.

  • Lard

    Since we’re going back to 2nd edition, give vehicles and gribblies the old terminator armour rules. So, for example, a modifiable 3+ save on 2d6 and something like 20 wounds. That way, a lasgun may cause a freak wound if you roll badly. I dunno. Just an idea

  • Talos2

    But most monstrous creatures can be wounded from all angles by normal assault weapons that every model in the army has, a tank can’t. A tank maybe being killed by a single shot is almost always less likely to be killed than the monstrous creature from wholesale shooting. It’s a poor comparison imo. They’re not the same thing

  • No-one Special

    I’m not a fan of any model decreasing in effectiveness as it loses wounds – not that it’s a bad thing, it’s a nice idea in principle, but I feel it’s just another thing to slow the game down with more referencing. I don’t mind vehicles being treated differently, in fact I quite like it – but there definitely does need to be more balance between Vehicles and MC’s.
    My preferred fix would be to leave MC’s generally as they are, but to make vehicles tougher in terms of their Armour Value and number of Hull Points – with the key rule change being they can suffer multiple wounds per the amount their AV is beaten by the armour penetration total.
    This protects them from smaller arms fire entirely, and reduces the effectivness of glancing vehicles to death as it takes longer to get through all the extra HP’s. This combines to add more value to dedicated anti-tank weapons as the primary method of removing vehicles instead the multi-shot mid strength weapons it often is. AV12 should be the most common front AV value whereas AV14 is probably still adequate for the top rate of vehicle armour, with the difference coming in the HPs instead.
    A D6 roll for additional damage can still be in effect in the event of a penetrating hit, but far less severe: 1-3 no additional damage, 4 Stunned, 5 Immobilised, 6 Weapon destroyed. The insta-death is gone and is replaced by the potential to do that via the multiple wound mechanic – and tougher vehicles are obviously less likely/immune to being one-shotted. As a by product this multi-wound mechanic also adds more potential for difference in the vehicles of individual races
    As an example if a Rhinos is now front AV12 with 4 HP and it gets hit by a Lascannon which rolls a 5 for penetration, giving it a total of 14. And because the shot penetrated it gets a 4 on the extra damage roll. The Rhino suffers 2 HP of damage and is Stunned – which isn’t too different the average effect a Rhino could expect from a Lascannon shot now, but the diffrence being it’s front armour and higher HP total now prevents it being one hit killed on that facing. Side/rear armour would still present the potential for a one hit kill.
    Where the real difference can be felt is at the oppsite ends of the scale – those massively abundant S6 weapons would lose a lot of their appeal, and anything below that is almost exclusively anti-infantry. Melta and Armour Bane weapons become truly terrifying – but does it simply compensate for only a single model being able to use a grenade? This may be an area that needs to be looked at – but with the average total of the 2D6 roll plus the usual S8 being 15, it doesn’t seem too bad. These weapons are statistically likely to do some damage, and if you’re lucky could one-shot anything – but could maybe limit them to one per combat phase to stop multiple melta bombs nuking everything with an AV value.
    This all works within the majority of the current rules frame work with only the vehicle stats truly needing changing, which is simple enough to do.