Welcome to Librarium Online!
Join our community of 80,000+ members and take part in the number one resource for Warhammer and Warhammer 40K discussion!
Registering gives you full access to take part in discussions, upload pictures, contact other members and search everything!
I think that vehicles are far too fragile currently. Whether or not this is due to a basic flaw in the game mechanics or the current hobby environment is NOT what is up for discussion here. Now, please take a look at my modified damage tables, discuss away, and please if you use them in your games post the results here!
Glancing Hit Chart:
1: Crew Shaken
2: Crew Shaken
3: Crew Stunned
4: Crew Stunned
5: Weapon Destroyed
Penetrating Hit Chart:
1: Crew Stunned (apply to every other result on this table)
2: Weapon Destroyed
4: Weapon Destroyed and Immobilized
5: Vehicle Destroyed and d6" Scatter (represents vehicle's final movement/death throes; also to discourage "planned destruction" of certain vehicles to turn them into terrain for stationary troops (i.e. Rhinos))
6: Vehicle Destroyed and d6" Explosion and d6" Scatter
If you field this chart.. I'd suggest quadroupling the cost of any vehicle in the game.
No thank you. I'd rather have playable than realisitic, and I'm not even sure these are realistic.
You do need a chance do destroy a vehicle on the glancing shots, the reason it is a 6 is because of the low chance of it happening.
Would you like to use them charts against a monolith? I think not.
lol i dont think quadrupling them is quite necessary, it doesnt make them THAT much durable than they are now. It would be a little imbalanced for things such as land raiders and monos. I think it would be better if there was more of a hard point system as it is. Wraithlords and talos kick the ass of dreadnoughts, mostly because they can't be one shoted and the extra AP dice dont affect them.
Tell that to Tyranid players. Our Venom Cannons can't penetrate non-open-topped vehicles. Also, just imagine how much more people would ***** about Falcon Grav Tanks.Originally Posted by Bruiser117
Why do the survivors remain anonymous -- as if cursed -- while the dead are revered? Why do we cling to what we lose while we ignore what we still hold?
Name none of the fallen, for they stood in our place, and stand there still in each moment of our lives.
--Duiker, "Deadhouse Gates"
Actually, I disagree here. I don't think you do need a chance to destroy a vehicle on a glancing shot... after all, it was a glancing shot.Originally Posted by The_Outsider
One house rule that I have played with a few times was that we would only allow penetrating shots (using the standard damage table for penetrating shots); the glancing table was only used for a penetrating shot on a fast moving skimmer, an obscured target, or with an AP- weapon. This made the vehicles much more survivable, obviously.
We played with wartrukks, buggies, tracks and dreadnoughts, etc., nothing more than 12 AV and the games playtested well.
This adjustment, however, would not be universally 'fair' for all armies, given the current codexes. Not all armies have STR 9 or 10 weapons available, and would therefore be unable to penetrate a Monolith or Land Raider. Some other work would have to be done to give each army at least a chance at these, and the simple fix would be to ensure a high strength ranged weapon is available for each army.
GW has been working hard to integrate vehicles into the game for a long time. Right now, they've developed a system that works fairly well, but isn't perfect. It isn't an easy task, as the scope and scale of mechanized warfare is so different than infantry-based combat.
The big problem with this table is that it makes the tanks of two specific races MUCH much stronger.
Those two races are eldar and Tau.
With decoy launchers, it would take an average of 36 glancing hits to take down a single devilfish moving fast.
The same is true for falcons, and for (opentopped) vypers it would take 9 glancing hits to destroy it.
That's getting a little rediculous.
The thing is, vehicles are currently balanced to work pointwise and gamewise for the current charts. With different charts, you have to change every single vehicle in the game (points at least) and every single army in the game (heavy weapon-wise) so that they can actually take down these vehicles.
In other words, you'd have to rewrite every codex.
So it's a good idea and could work fine in some games, but you wouldn't want to generalize it and have say, a mini-tournament using these tables, since outside of controlled situations, it's AMAZINGLY easy to take advantage of
Be interesting to play with these tables and Escalation though.
You have just recieved the Amish Computer Virus. Since the Amish don't have computers, it is based on the honor system. So please delete all the files from your computer. Thank you for you cooperation.
Votewar 40k Mk1- 2nd Place
Votewar FB 1- 1st Place
Votewar 40k Mk5- 1st Place
Though vehicles seem pretty fragile in 40K I think it is pretty realistic. Just compare 40K vehicles to vehicles used currently. In real life vehicles are nearly unstopable with small arms fire in the same way that no basic gun in the game is going to take down a chimera's front armor (the strongest non upgraded weapon is only str 5). Anti-Armor shells that do stop armor stop it so effectively that it almost never takes two shots; In the begining of desert storm the US drove all of its tanks into Iraq together--right into the Iraqi tanks. It took 37 shots to destroy 37 enemy tanks; Everyone of the Iraqi tanks was destroyed in one shot, before they could fire back...how is that for fragile vehicles? Very few times thoughout history has armor been stronger than anti-armor. The only time I can actually remember it happened durring the civil war when two Iron Ships met in a river and pounded on each other until they ran out of ammo (I should know the names of the ships). Other than that people are always trying to find out a way to protect them selves from weapons that are stronger than their armor, and as soon as they get close the anti armor gets looked at again. Though it would be nice if I could expect my vehicles would last the whole game, but that isn't realistic in a war. If two super powers went to war you would find that tanks are not that tough when they are against an army at the same technology level.
Yeah, but you can't use this for a comparison, in all fairness. Thos Iraqi tanks that were destroyed with one shot apiece were, at best, T-72 model soviet exports, which are real pieces of junk, which we were destroying with 25mm and .50 caliber rounds. Neither of these are supposed to penetrate/destroy a tank, but the T-72 is so pitifully weak they did anyway. Turn that around and give statistics for how many M1 Abrams were destroyed by the Iraqi 125mm main guns? As far as I know not a single one.Originally Posted by nichodemus10
Now of course we need to make some assumptions and have a little suspension of disbelief, but the Land Raider, based purely on fluff, as the pinnacle of Imperial vehicle construction should never be destroyed by a glancing hit from anything (IMHO of course). Now a dedicated anti-tank weapon (multi-melta, lascannon, alien equivilants, etc.). Still has a reasonable chance of destroying the tank, as they should.
Take it for what it is worth,