4th Ed. Trial vehicle rules! - Warhammer 40K Fantasy
 

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!


Register Now!

User Tag List

Closed Thread
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 25
  1. #1
    The Landlord Blackhat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    at home
    Posts
    5,750
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    My Spotify

    ReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputation
    414 (x8)

    4th Ed. Trial vehicle rules!

    I got this from the Necron Yahoo Groups i don't know anything more than what is said here and i don't know how reliable it is.

    Evidently this is the currently "in-play-test-4th-edition-vehicle-rules."

    Glancing:
    1 No Effect
    2 No Effect
    3 Crew Shaken
    4 Crew Stunned
    5 Weapon Destroyed, (Owners choice).
    6 Woot Lucky shot - Roll on Penetrating Hits table

    Penetrating Hits

    1 Crew Shaken
    2 Crew Stunned
    3 Weapon Destroyed, (attackers choice).
    4 Gyro Damaged, 1/2 Movement.
    5 Immobilized, may still fire weapons.
    6 Incapacitated, - becomes part of the terrain. Same results as if it was destroyed but more inline with historical reference.(Think about it, if we keep blowing them up where do they keep coming from if we can no longer produce them?)

    Sucessive hits, both glancing and penetrating, add +1 to all other results. This is cumulative.

    {
    Vehicle Firing:

    Vehicles may move up to 6" and fire all weapons, with the ability to split fire.
    Vehicles moving beyond 6" may fire one weapon.
    Vehicles moving beyond 12" may fire one turret-mounted weapon.
    Moving vehicles may not fire ordnance.
    Dreadnoughts may move and fire two weapons, or remain stationary and fire all weapons.

    Embarkation / Assaulting:
    Assault moves made that require disembarkation have their distances measured from the transport itself, so that they may not gain an extra 2 or 3" for deployment. Vehicles moving up to 18" may deploy troops assault-ready. Troops assaulting from a transport do not gain the +1 assaulting bonus, and may not shoot.

    Roll 2d6 when getting a GLANCING or PENETRATING hit on a 'walker'.
    OPEN-TOPPED walkers get a +1 on this chart.
    For every PENATRATING HIT add +1 to the roll and all future rolls on this chart. ORDANACE PENATRATING HIT add +2 to the roll and all future rolls on this chart (pens are cumlative)

    2-4: Rattled (can't shoot 1 weapon, defending player's choice)
    5-6: Shaken (can't shoot at all)
    7: Stunned (lose D3 movement and can't shoot at all)
    8: Immoblized
    9: Weapon Destroyed
    10: Destroyed (regular destroyed)
    11: Destroyed (Scatter D6)
    12: Destroyed (removed from play with blast radius) "

    Thanks
    Blackhat


  2. Remove Advertisements
    Librarium-Online.com
    Advertisements
     

  3. #2
    LO Zealot
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Nærbø, Rogaland, Norway
    Age
    33
    Posts
    1,770
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Reputation
    6 (x4)

    Nice...

    Where did you find this?


    Kasutta!
    check out my blog: DRAGONSLAYERO

    HEY!
    I WAS IN THE IMPERIAL (Norwegian) GUARD!

  4. #3
    The Landlord Blackhat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    at home
    Posts
    5,750
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    My Spotify

    ReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputation
    414 (x8)

    I'm surfing the newsgroups daily for rumours and I found this, I guess its just another rumour, but I can't say for sure.

  5. #4
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    1
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Reputation
    1 (x0)

    I've seen those tables too, they're some that popped up on the Games Development Forum on the GW-Community site.
    As for their legitimaty I think that someone took them for being "official" playtest and then posted them around.
    While some of it seems to be good enough (taken inspiration from the damage charts for Super-Heavy vehicles) the rest is in my opinion bad for the game.
    The idea with cummulative bonusses to the tables seems like a good idea but is in thruth a bog on the gameplay. I can still remember the good ole' days of accounting in 2nd ed. Frankly I don't feel like going back to that. Besides it is not in line with GW policy of less accounting in their main battlegames. As they said with their Trial Assault Rules "this is an attempt to remove some of the logistical nightmares out there." If they actually were playtesting rules such as those they would be turning on a platter and would have to revise a lot of material and point costs, which would lead to all new codexes... again.

    The Vehicle Firing should in my opinion be rewritten to this:

    Vehicles may move up to 6" and fire all weapons, They may split fire if they under no circumstance can trace a LOS to one target with all their weapons. Note: a vehicle MUST be positioned so that all weapons can fire at the same target if possible. (makes no sense otherwise)
    Vehicles moving beyond 6" may fire one weapon.
    Vehicles moving beyond 12" may not fire.
    Moving vehicles may not fire ordnance.
    Walkers may move and fire two weapons, or remain stationary and fire all weapons.

    Regards

    Mallus

  6. #5
    LO Zealot
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Nærbø, Rogaland, Norway
    Age
    33
    Posts
    1,770
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Reputation
    6 (x4)

    Ok... so if I'm not way off on the cornfield bow, then what you say is that it was posted on the GW forums?


    Cheers!
    check out my blog: DRAGONSLAYERO

    HEY!
    I WAS IN THE IMPERIAL (Norwegian) GUARD!

  7. #6
    Son of LO BorninDarkness's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Maastricht (Netherlands)
    Age
    30
    Posts
    3,574
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputation
    50 (x8)

    Yes it could be one of the home-brew things. There are several new damage tables floating around the GW dev-forum. This is a mix of several of those, you might notice the mistake: there's a gyro damaged result for vehicles in the table but gyros are for walkers only.

  8. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Peterborough, UK
    Posts
    377
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Reputation
    1 (x1)

    I don't like this at all. It makes it so much harder to kill high armour things, because glancing hits are that much less effective. I also hate the new assault rules. They have summat against Orks.

  9. #8
    LO Zealot
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Nærbø, Rogaland, Norway
    Age
    33
    Posts
    1,770
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Reputation
    6 (x4)

    Ok so it's nice to see new aspects of the rules but I have to agree with Odd_Bloke, there is a bit to many new rules. Some of them might be cool, but then again the game is supposed to be fun to play, it's not supposed to be play one hour... read the rules three hours...

    If you understand what I mean...


    Skål!
    check out my blog: DRAGONSLAYERO

    HEY!
    I WAS IN THE IMPERIAL (Norwegian) GUARD!

  10. #9
    Son of LO BorninDarkness's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Maastricht (Netherlands)
    Age
    30
    Posts
    3,574
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputation
    50 (x8)

    Actually I don't mind more (complex) rules, though I'm getting the feeling that I'm the only person who thinks like that . But remember the above rules aren't official or even GW trial, they're home-brewn, if you also post at the GW forums you'd know this.
    Ze titles yez...
    When in doubt,
    Smite.
    <SilverMane> I would trust BID with my life
    <SilverMane> HEIL BID!
    <Adrian-> BiD is Omnipotent; All Knowing, All Powerful!
    <Scary_Troopers> I see you as an optimist, GT. : D

    But what of the midgets!?
    =]Front in favour of Moderation of the Harshest kind.[=


  11. #10
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    3
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Reputation
    1 (x0)

    "Trial" vehicle rules

    I've been playing GW games since 1987. The one consistent thing I've noticed amongst players is that most people bitch about new rules.

    I used to be one of them. Then I realized that not all new rules were bad. I also look at how the games have evolved over the years. I played Rogue Trader once. At the time I decided that if I wanted to count beans, I'd get a degree in accounting.

    If all of the changes I've heard come true, I think the 40K game will be better for it. I wouldn't have picked up 3rd edition had they not made the game more playable.

    In my opinion the new assault rules are the best refinement the game has had. I'm hoping that the 4th edition will consistently tighten the playability and possibilities to be found within the rules.

    I also hope GW has learned that they simply don't have the creative resources to reproduce every codex and army book for a new edition of the rules. This has been my biggest sore point over the years.

    In summary, I think that after an adjustment period, whatever new rules are written will be seen as the "best" version produced. Until further refinement takes place.

    Best regards.

Closed Thread
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts