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 just thought about this...
Make the vehicle damage table use a D6, but have the results on a chart ranged 1 through 10.
Roll the D6, and add 1 for each point the penetration roll exceeded the armor factor.
WIth this type of setup, we would only need one table. a 6 result would never result in a vehicle destroyed. glances and stuns would be fairly commonplace. one shot kills against armor would be a bit more rare, more along the lines of a point black good melta shot with a high delta off the armor rating, et. al.
Apply negative modifiers to the roll for things like skimmers moving over 6", monoliths, and the like, the specifics of which could be worked out later.
It would add slightly more to the complexity of the rules, but make mechanized armies viable IMHO...
Just a quick thought.
I think that would complicate things too much. The current rules are ok. I just think the glancing hit table should have a 'no damage' rating. This represents the shot simply blowing off a light or other non essential objects.
I dont see why every glancing hit should be able to damage the vehicle to a point where the crew are unable to shoot (as a minimum).
Dark Elves - Game #28 vs High Elves: Draw
W L D
21 5 5
It's a pretty cool idea think, and certainly warrants further investigation.
I still think that fast moving skimmers should be:
a) harder to hit
b) harder to shoot from
c) add +1 to the glancing table.
definitely skimmers should be harder to hit.
Hopefully in the next version of 40K, they'll make cover and fast skimmers count as a negative modifier to hit instead of how it's done now. That would fix a few inconsistencies. Hull down would just make a tank harder to hit , for example, and it would be sensible for all models to make maximum use of cover. The only problem with this would be resolving for ordinance, which just lands where it lands and affects whatever is under it.
I think they need to so something for vehicles though......
A 160+ ish Leman Russ can killed with one Lascannon shot.
The same pointish Uber Dakka Carnifex with 5 wounds, 2+ save needs at least 5. The Carnifex can keep shooting while taking in wounds. Every time the Russ gets glanced or penetrated it can't fire and do damage on the enemy, if it didn't get destroyed!
"A love for tradition has never weakened a nation, indeed it has strengthened nations in their hour of peril."
Sir Winston Churchil
how about a weapons ap contributes to this. an ap2 weapon will get a bonus, while an ap6 weapon will get a penalty. P.S. this(yours that is) is a great idea.
That is not dead which may eternal lie,
for in strange aeons even death may die.
As for the main idea, I think it's brilliant. It limits the chances of a "lucky hit", but as I've said elsewhere, 40K doesn't really work on a scale where lucky hits are relevant (after all, if you can get a 1 in a million chance shot with 2 good die rolls, that seems a bit biased). It would also make tanks a lot more fun to use, deliberate AT weapons that much more effective (never anything more irritating than firing 3 lascannons at a tank and triple-stunning it), and speed the game up a little.
However, I do run into one problem. I tried out a provisional damage table, and it would make heavy armour almost impossible to destroy from range. This isn't quite accurate - it's difficult to knock out an MBT or the like, but not impossible. Also, things like the Land Raider with all its uber-gubbins would become almost unstoppable (not that it's not already)...
But it would be nice to field a mech company against 'Nids and have a decent chance of winning...
If it ain't broke, it might need fixing.
The difficult we do immediately. The impossible may take a little longer.US Army Corps of EngineersMember of Advanced 40K development team (self-appointed)