Jump to content



Photo

Fed up with a certain issue.


  • Please log in to reply
15 replies to this topic

#1 SirRunOn

SirRunOn

    Member

  • Members
  • 87 posts

Posted 06 May 2012 - 12:45 PM

Hi alls,

Just finished perusing the Jericho Reach suppliment for Deathwatch and I was rather impressed by it all in all, but also a bit put out by a continuing issue in the mechanics.

It seems to me that the most dangerous anti vehicle units in the game, specifically Tyranid Monsterous Creatures, bit to no lesser extent Dreadnoughts of the astartes and defilers of chaos, are almost harmless to vehicles.  The idea is mind boggling.  It seems that while a heirophant could easily pick up a Land Raider and beat you to death with it, doing so would not in any way inconvienience the Land Raider.   If I have my math right if the most powerful bio titan were to stomp on said Raider, the max he could do is ONE point of damage?

I hope I'm not alone in seeing a need to rectify this.  I note that the lower damage in close combat of things that are supposed to be threshing machines has been a topic of previous threads as well.

I've looked into the numbers on the issue of immense strength attackers against vehicles, taken in the arguments that any revision to the creatures damage would make them too dangerous against space marines(though honestly if one of these things steps on even a marine the logical end result SHOULD make a pancake feel unusually thick by comparison) and have a suggestion.  A drastic increase in AP, varying from 30 or so for dreadnoughts and hive tyants, through 40 for the specifically anti vehicle carnifex, to a devestating 50 for the enormous bio titan.  Looking at the stat system this should make such behemoths more of a factor against the foes they're specifically tailored to face, while not particularly more dangerous to things with a good toughness value.  On a normal marine the added damge would be around seven points, not a small amount I'm aware but still compared to the upwards of thirty damage such creatures already pack in a shot not exactly the worst possibility.  On a vehicle however the extra AP, as vehicles only defense is armor for the most part, would allow the attacks to go through for vastly more damage as is suggested by the original system, dictated by logic and shown in the fluff. 

I read one particular article where a space marine dreadnought engaged a carnifex in close combat and they were unable to do much to each other.  The current system suggests that.  Taking the fluff such a battle is a titanic engagement, over in a few blows either way.  Using the tabletop rules system the fight generally lasts one round, in which the dreadnought punches the carnifex in the face, hurting the beast who then reaches out, squashes the dreadnought like a tin can and tosses it over it's shoulder into the trash.  The second type of battle is the most desired, the first is what we have now, and the third closest to what would happen in my suggestion(which of course mean's it's not perfect, but hell at least it doesn't take all day).

On a related note, what the hell? Rending claws, razor sharp?  Ok, little bit of math here, rending claws do in general three damage less than scything talons, but on a special roll that activates razor sharp, they do just as much damage as scything talons…  Color me a bit quixotic… but why the HELL would I take rending claws under those conditions?

Your over talkative forum goer, still trying to get his blather skill to +10,

SRO

P.S. you could really use a preview post button here.  I don't know what my post is going to look like before I publish and I'm hoping that the paragraphs have a space between them as it looks in the editor.



#2 Black_Kestrel

Black_Kestrel

    Member

  • Members
  • 134 posts

Posted 07 May 2012 - 07:55 AM

N0-1_H3r3 proposed a house rule here (http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_foros_discusion.asp?efid=179&efcid=3&efidt=505519&efpag=0#505841) that addresses your concern.



#3 SirRunOn

SirRunOn

    Member

  • Members
  • 87 posts

Posted 07 May 2012 - 12:03 PM

Well that is nice, but I notice, as with most of the threads in this forum that no one came to an actual conclusion about that ruleset, nor did they give examples of their results.  While I am interested in those points of view, I'm not going to necro a year old thread that never amounted to anything over it.

You can of course proove me wrong by finding some results somewhere.

I'd love to hear about other peoples ideas and see how they turned out!  How does mine stack up?  How did yours work?  There's plenty of threads out there about HEY ISN'T THIS A GREAT IDEA which then peter out without ever getting to the execution phase.  I'm decidedly inclined to not allow that to happen here.

Thanks for your feedback kestrel, anyone else have something?

 



#4 bogi_khaosa

bogi_khaosa

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,153 posts

Posted 07 May 2012 - 06:34 PM

As things stand now, a Carnifex can thrash most tanks by attacking the rear armour.

It seems to me that the problem with the Land Raider is that its AP is too high. It should have the value of a Predator's front armor (35?) all round. Its greater SPs should make up the difference.

 



#5 professor_kylan

professor_kylan

    Member

  • Members
  • 405 posts

Posted 07 May 2012 - 07:54 PM

I haven't had a chance to use this yet, but the house rule I've been considering implementing is as follows:

New Trait: Crushing

Creatures with the Crushing Trait add half their Strength bonus to the Penetration of their natural or Impact type weapons when attacking vehicles or structures.

Hoping to try it out Friday.

 

 

 



#6 H.B.M.C.

H.B.M.C.

    Freelance Writer/Play-Tester

  • Members
  • 1,491 posts

Posted 08 May 2012 - 07:52 PM

bogi_khaosa said:

As things stand now, a Carnifex can thrash most tanks by attacking the rear armour.

It seems to me that the problem with the Land Raider is that its AP is too high. It should have the value of a Predator's front armor (35?) all round. Its greater SPs should make up the difference.



That actually is part of it. Vehicles are slightly more durable than they should be, so much so that certain so-called anti-tank weapons have to get lucky to cause damage. But a Carnifex should be able to thrash most vehicles from the front, not just the rear.

Tyranid weapons in general were poorly designed as they do not scale at all (Pen 3 on a Hierophant being the most obvious example of that). Vehicles as well are an incomplete rule set (IMO) and I'm hoping that there will be an update that fixes some of their issues (270 fire arcs for sponsons, how charges work with Dreads/Bikes, the how Bikes don't work at all, and so on).

BYE


Matt Eustace. Contributing Author Credits: Church of the Damned, The Lathe Worlds, The Lathe Worlds - The Lost Dataslate, Only War Core Rulebook, Hammer of the Emperor, Shield of Humanity, Tome of Fate, Tome of Blood, Tome of Excess and Tome of Decay.

The views expressed in this post are my own. I do not speak for or on behalf of Fantasy Flight Games.


#7 SirRunOn

SirRunOn

    Member

  • Members
  • 87 posts

Posted 09 May 2012 - 10:37 AM

Very very true, thanks guys.

One note, I put this thread here instead of house rules because I think this issue is major enough to deserve actual fixing by the games creator, not just some workaround by the players.  FFG has made a great system, which adjusts as the game goes on, but tends to not only miss but perpetuate this issue.

It seems simple to me to realize when everyone who encounters the situation HAS to make some workaround for it, it's obviously an error and needs to be fixed at the source.

Oh and btw, the Land Raider does have stronger armor than the predator, all around.  The armor stats on the high end, especially armor 14 vehicles, are a bit overrated, but not horribly, depending on if you're shooting at them with space marine or non space marine weapons AT RANGE.  That was nicely done, and though I think they have too many hitpoints(since in one image from wh40k we see a str 9 gauss weapon one hit kill and actually through and through a land raider, the righteous fury roll from hell in the current rules) all the anti vehicle close combat weapons, from the power fist to the monsterous scything talon are basically junk against them.

We really not only need to talk about and try these suggestions out, in length, but bring them before FFG, drop them on their laps and say "HERE we did all the work for you, please FIX IT."

On that subject, what are your ideas on proper AP to make CC weapons a threat to vehicle armor(without the ol walk up and rip open the hatch)?



#8 Decessor

Decessor

    Member

  • Members
  • 981 posts

Posted 09 May 2012 - 12:29 PM

Some of the FFG designers frequent these boards but there are no guarantees any of them will see a given thread or take action based on it. Perhaps ask a rules question to get their attention? Bottom of the page.



#9 DJSunhammer

DJSunhammer

    Member

  • Members
  • 612 posts

Posted 09 May 2012 - 03:00 PM

I think this is a problem with almost all weapons designed to be anti-vehicle, even those available to players. The Power Fist, Chain Fist, and Thunder Hammer do poor damage, so do most Melta weapons. Just about the only anti-vehicle weapon that is accurate to table top is the Lascannon.

javascript:void(0);/*1336614856218*/ 

That link is for a thread that is about modifying DW weapons to be closer to their TT stats. You will to place limitations on the power fist and weapons that are similar though. They should be limited to only use Standard Attacks [or All-out or charge], if they weren't they could do obscene damage with a multiple attack action.



#10 herichimo

herichimo

    Member

  • Members
  • 918 posts

Posted 09 May 2012 - 05:57 PM

SirRunOn said:

On that subject, what are your ideas on proper AP to make CC weapons a threat to vehicle armor(without the ol walk up and rip open the hatch)?

The problem with this line of thought is, even in the table top, attacking vehicles in hand to hand IS going for the hatches, vents, periscopes, and other weakpoints. This point is specifically mentioned in the rules and is why all hand to hand attacks strike the rear armor, even if made on the front armor. This means, expecting a marine or even a large monstrosity (barring titan sized or other absurdly strong or large things) to cave in the side plating of a vehicle is inappropriate.

The biggest issue with this is FFG's rules for vehicles are incomplete. They feel rushed and poorly done. For instance, there are no guidelines for a GM concerning what really happens when attacking a vehicle in hand to hand and how to handle it. A power fist shouldn't bust a hole in the side of the tank, but with its +1 Unnatural strength modifier (which can be used for normal strength tests for that arm, unlike thunderhammers) it would make strength tests to pry open a hatch, or smash a track much easier. Thunderhammers similarly wouldn't bust a hole in a tank, but popping hatches, smashing periscopes, ruining track wheels, and smashing weapon mounts would all be reasonable and simple. Chainfists should be able to cut their way through armor yes, but not in a single turn. Slicing through a hatch lock, or track link in a single turn sure, but cutting through hull plating should take several turns and require extended tests to determine how quickly you are cutting through in each turn. All these things are realistically whats happening in 40k (with the rear armor rule), but the effects are simplified for the limited ruleset. Unfortunately there are no guidlines for GMs or player on how to handle these attacks in an RPG ruleset.

We should focus on creating realistic guidelines to taking apart vehicles in hand to hand instead of simply making weapons more and more powerful until they shred anything with ease.



#11 DJSunhammer

DJSunhammer

    Member

  • Members
  • 612 posts

Posted 09 May 2012 - 09:59 PM

How complicated are you willing to make a rule like that? Do you really want to take the time to consider how long it will take to literally cut through the armor?

What I'm suggesting isn't that melee weapons be capable of killing a vehicle in one hit. What I'm suggesting is that they have enough damage to actually hurt a vehicle. As it stands, even anti-vehicle weapons are incapable of even taking one structure point from a tank. I favor a simple route. Additional damage is one of the simplest routes there is.



#12 bogi_khaosa

bogi_khaosa

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,153 posts

Posted 10 May 2012 - 07:04 AM

For melee, just use the rear armour value. Problem solved, except for Land Raidersand walkers.



#13 Pyrus

Pyrus

    Member

  • Members
  • 71 posts

Posted 10 May 2012 - 08:31 AM

 As a long-time band-aid fixer of games (there is no perfect system, and all groups game differently) I'd say a fairly straightforward way of dealing with vehicles would be the addition of an "Anti-Vehicle" weapon quality.  It is by no means perfect, and a full-fledged fix would definitely be better. But, it may help with some headaches until a more robust correction can be made. A GM would apply this quality to anything they deem to be a vehicle buster… be it a missile, a thunder hammer, or an ill-tempered Carnifex's talons. Feel free to tinker with "X" in this case, be it a % of total armor, or a fixed value, or whatever seems to work best. This is kind of an off-the-cuff solution.

 

Anti-Vehicle: Whether it be through precision targeting, resonant effects, or pure brute strength, attacks with this weapon greatly reduce vehicle-class armor's effectiveness. Ignore "X" amount of armor on vehicle-class targets with this weapon. Note: non-vehicle class targets do not suffer this penalty. Though the weapon may strike, the full effectiveness of whatever mechanism allows it to be so destructive to vehicles cannot be brought to bear.

 

(Anti-vehicle weaponry may use a vehicle's mass against it… like pushing a pin into a bulletin board, versus pushing it into an empty soda can… unless something anchors the can to hold it still, it just rolls with the punch. Similarly, an infantry unit may be too 'light' for special armor effect to come into play - odds are it's paste regardless, if we're talking a true anti-vehicle weapon.)



#14 SirRunOn

SirRunOn

    Member

  • Members
  • 87 posts

Posted 13 May 2012 - 12:57 PM

I've looked around and refined my ideas into the FFG game system.  Two traits and two weapon qualities are my initial offering.

 

Trait: Monsterous

Huge and powerful, monsterous creatures make a mockery of even the toughest beings and armor.  Any being with this trait automatically subtracts its full modified strength bonus from the combined armor and toughness of a creature with this trait or any vehicle.

Trait: Hideous Cleave

The few possessors of this trait are amongst the most feared close combatants in the universe, their melee weapons capable of slicing throught untold amounts of armor, plasteel or flesh.  Size is of no protection from these beings, and is in fact a detriment, as the larger the target the larger the wound inflicted.  When a creature with this trait strikes an opponent in close combat for every degree of success it scores add two extra points of damage for every size category of the target beyond hulking.  For example if an attacker with this trait scores three degrees of success against a enormous opponent add six points of damage to the corresponding damage roll.  The same attack against a massive opponent would score an extra 12 points.

 

Quality: High Impact

The largest of close combat weapons used by humanity are not primarily designed for anti personel use, and are generally difficult use without the proper training.  Against giant targets however these weapons are of unparalleled usefullnes.  Against targets of the same size as the wielder or adeptus astartes this weapon can only be used in an all out attack action and reduces all initiative rolls of above two to two in any round that it is used.  Against any target of a larger size class than the weilder this weapon can be used normally.  In addition against any vehicle this weapon halves the targets armor points before modifiers.

Quality: Vehicle Powered

This quality is only allowed to close combat weapons mounted on vehicles.  Attacks with this weapon gain the Monsterous trait.

 

Hmm, the two middle ones come across slightly more complicated than I imagined, but that may be due to my poor attempt at wording them.



#15 DJSunhammer

DJSunhammer

    Member

  • Members
  • 612 posts

Posted 13 May 2012 - 06:14 PM

I agree, they are far too complex. I'm guessing that High Impact would would be used on Power Fist type weapons. The problem with this is that it would make them extremely underpowered, to the point that they might as well not exist. It is also contradictory. If a Power Fist hits a human sized target, even one that is a Space Marine, there is a good chance that it will pulp them [as far as fluff is concerned]. Your rule doesn't really consider this. I really like the initiative changes though. I was thinking something similar.

Here is an idea, a modification to the your rule, or maybe even to the Unwieldy rule.

High Impact

The largest of close combat weapons used by humanity are not primarily designed for anti-personel use, and are generally slow and difficult to use without the proper training. This makes them poor weapons for disposing of a large amount of enemies quickly. There is a benefit to this however, as weapons with this quality strike with enough force to cleave through the armor of almost every vehicle they come against. This raw force has been known to obliterate infantry targets as well, even those that are heavily armored.

These weapons can only be used with a Standard Attack action and any attack above initiative 2 made with these weapons is reduced to initiative 2. These weapons also triple  the wielders Strength Bonus [or increase it by two] when it is added to damage [before other modifiers from Unnatural Strength or Power Armor.]

 

The huge damage bonus is added because without it, the weapons wouldn't be worth using. There are also several alternatives to this. Instead of a massive increase in SB, the weapon could always add the users SB [after modifiers] to the pen of the weapon. You could also say that it doubles SB after all modifiers. For a Space Marine the two options should yield roughly the same bonus damage from SB.



#16 SirRunOn

SirRunOn

    Member

  • Members
  • 87 posts

Posted 14 May 2012 - 11:36 AM

High impact came off as more of a negative than a positive since it was the only one of the ideas I hadn't thought out in the car on the way home *shrug*.  The initiative rule is somewhat obvious as it's in all the versions of these weapons since third edition.

I hate to say but FFG would probably ignore that rewrite of the rule because of something I noticed them doing and a bit from the other threads.  It seems they have decided that no close combat attack, no matter how ludicrous the connotation, should have a chance to one hit kill a precious pc space marine(A corollary to the AluminiumWolf "All I want in a character is an indestructable rock god" rule).  Tripling strength bonus *might* break this rule and I've avoided making any of these rule suggestions effect human and space marine sized targets at all.

I'd honestly like to clean up the description of cleave but I'm not sure how to make "the bigger the target the more damage it takes" sound good in rpg lingo.  I like the "more DoS = more damage" mechanic for it, since DoS don't seem to mean jack diddly in CC, but getting it all into a nice neat package is a bit meh.

 

A little list, though I might miss something since I don't have every book.

Units currently statted in FFG which would have Monsterous:

Demon Prince, All Greater Demons, Tomb/Canoptek Spider, Hive Tyrant, Carnifex, Trygon, Mawloc, Harpy, Harridan, Tyranofex, Tervigon, Hierophant, Hierodule, Wraithlord, Avatar

Units currently in FFG which would have Hideous Cleave:

Carnifex, Heirodule, Avatar






© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS