Librarium Online Forums banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 25 Posts

·
The Landlord
Joined
·
5,750 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
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 Same results as if it was destroyed but more inline with historical reference.(Think about it, if we keep blowing them up where do they keep coming from if we can no longer produce them?)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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1 Posts
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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,575 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
377 Posts
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. :(
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,770 Posts
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!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,575 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3 Posts
"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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
41 Posts
I agree with Stormshield about the new assault rules and it does show how new rules can actually make the game easier to play. Before tanks were like moving tombs (especially rhinos) but now they are harder to kill in 4th edition. Even wit these new rules it makes them even more "tank like" in my opinion and should make the game more realistic to play.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,770 Posts
True, most people give a f**** about new rules. Some still use em, it's all a matter of who reads the rules and finds them interesting...

Cheers!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
581 Posts
I actually like these vehicle rules, at least if they get implemented. They have more of the realism that was present in some aspects of 2nd edition without the complexity. I especially like the rules for firing. Finally a distinction between a turret mounted weapon and other weapons! I really think it makes sense when you think about how tanks are supposed to work, the turret is the main armament, and they are designed to move fast and fire their turret gun. The other weapons (sponsons and so forth) are more auxiliaries and self-defense. I also like the idea of splitting fire, as it allows the sponsons to act in more of a protective role for the tank while the turret acts as its main offensive weapon. This also further reinforces the idea that the Land Raider is not a battle tank, but a transport.

These rules seem to restore a lot of the mobility and flexibility tanks lost in 3rd edition without the complexity of the old 2nd edition rules. That, I think, is a good thing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
295 Posts
when will this apply for vehicles?

Now finally I can have my Land raider alone destroying everything... ;)


and what do u expect from a grav tank? roll two dices on pene and glancing charts and choose the lowest... sigh..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
82 Posts
If these are the future rules they kick total ass. I play the Guard and i find that my tanks are way to easily blow up. I also agree about rhinos, they are just to damn easy to blow up. My armoured fist squad has better protection than the emperors finest.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
131 Posts
I don't like the current rules just because your main battle tanks have to be stationary and you have to baby them so much. The trial rules help alot.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
178 Posts
i like every thing but the adding... makes me think back to the horror of rogue trader... grids.. charts.... adding/subtracting your BS... pass the abicus.....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
959 Posts
these vehicle rules dont seem bad, but is it just me or is it jus as easy to kill a tank on a glancing hit as it is on a penetrating hit? doesnt make sense if thats right.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,770 Posts
In my opinion the rules as their are today, the vechicles are to prone to be destroyed, even by glancing hits.

Oh and ordinance should be able to move up to 6" and fire, above that they should be disallowed
 
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top