Jump to content



Photo

Mathhammer, this is Meatbag 2-4, enemy armor spotted, request fire mission!


  • Please log in to reply
40 replies to this topic

#1 Varn

Varn

    Member

  • Members
  • 45 posts

Posted 15 July 2012 - 03:24 PM

A lot of people have been complaining about vehicle armor values and that they are way too high, so I went and took a look at them myself. I will admit that at first glance, they do seem way too high, however; before I pass judgment, I thought it best if I really took a close look at everything. So, for those of you who have an aversion to mathematics, I would suggest leaving this thread now.

The vehicles that will be tested are as follows:
Leman Russ MBT
Chimera IFV
Defiler
Trukk

I feel that this sample best represents the most common threats players will face.

The weapons being tested are as follows:

Battle Cannon (with and without AT shells)
Vanquisher Cannon
Las Cannon
Multi-Melta
Plasma Cannon (on Maximal setting)
Auto-cannon
Krak Missile
Hunter-Killer Missile

These weapons have been chosen because I feel they are the most common weapons that a player would use when combating enemy armor.

Test will be conducted using a competent gunner (BS40) who is making standard attacks (+10) with a half action to aim (+10) in addition to any relevant bonuses granted from a weapon itself. The gunner will take six (6) shots at each facing. I figure if you can make 6 attacks on something, and you haven’t destroyed or seriously damaged it by then, then what you’re doing isn’t working. Since this test is primarily to test a vehicle’s survivability, they will not return fire. Once all the testing data has been posted, I will post up my overall review of the testing for the weapons and the targets and what changes I think should be made.

Data Format:
(Weapon Name) (Weapon Damage and Penetration) (Extra Rules)
(Facing being attacked)-(number of hits): (hit location)
(Damage roll)= (SI damage) (number of RF’s scored)
(End result) (Overall Effect)

Target: Leman Russ MBT
Armor- 45/32/25
SI- 70

Weapon: Battle Cannon (3d10+10 8pen) (AT shells 12pen)
Front- 4 hits: 2 Motive, 1 Hull, 1 Weapon
30,31,21,26= 0,0,0,0 (2 RF’s)
Effect: Total SI 68/70, (No Effect)
Side- 5 hits: 4 Hull, 1 Motive
32,28,27,28,26= 8,4,3,4,2 (3 RFs)
Effect: Total SI 49/70, 2 Possible crew stunned, -10 BS for one round, Operator takes 1 Fatigue, Possible new random facing (Very Poor Effect)
Rear- 5 hits: 1 Turret, 3 Hull, 1 Motive
35,22,25,24,27= 0,5,8,7,10 (3 RFs)
Effect: Total SI 39/70, Random crewman injured, vehicle out of control (Very Poor Effect)

The following is the outcome of the attacks, had Anti-Tank shells been used:
Front- Same Effect
Side- 29/70 SI, Moderate Effect
Rear- 20/70 SI, Poor Effect

Overall: The Battle Cannon is a poor counter to a Leman Russ with the current rules. While AT shells help, it still takes a lot of pounding to crack this nut. In my mind, 6 AT shells to the rear is far more than it should take to kill a tank.

 

Weapon: Vanquisher Cannon (3d10+10 16pen) (Accurate)
Front- 3 hits: 1 Weapon, 2 Motive
39,46,36= 10,17,7 (1 RF)
Effect: Total SI 36/70, Restricted to tactical speed for a turn (Poor Effect)
Side- 3 hits: 1 Motive, 1 Hull, 1 Turret
40,34,35= 24,18,6 (1 RF)
Effect: Total SI 32/70, (Poor Effect)
Rear- 3 hits: 2 Hull, 1 Turret
44,19,29= 35,10,0 (0 RFs)
Effect: Total SI 25/70 (Poor Effect)

Overall: The Vanquisher did much better than the Battle Cannon, my terrible rolls notwithstanding. However, one would think that such a grand weapon as the Vanquisher, being specially designed to kill armor (and a primary weapon used by ground forces to take down Titans) that you would see some better results even with just 3 hits. Accurate is what really makes this gun stand apart, I got a lot of extra 2d10s. Again, I expect a lot more after 6 shots from such a “fearsomely powerful” weapon.

 

Weapon: Las Cannon (5d10+10 10pen) (Proven 3)
Front- 3 hits: 1 Weapon, 1 Motive, 1 Hull
44,42,35= 9,7,0 (2 RFs)
Effect: Total SI 54/70, Weapon jammed, Fuel leak -20 crew actions until fixed (Poor Effect)
Side- 4 hits: 1 Hull, 1 Motive, 2 Turret
45,35,45,35= 20,10,10,0 (2 RFs)
Effect: Total SI 30/70, Burst gas line -20 crew actions until fixed, Turret Locked (Poor Effect)
Rear- 4 hits: 1 Turret, 3 Hull
36,48,30,24= 1,23,5,0 (1 RF)
Effect: Total SI 41/70, Rear armored reduced by 1d10 (Very Poor Effect)

Overall: The Las Cannon really looked like it would do well, and it did aright overall, but once again, for a weapon that is known for its ability to knock out armor, it didn’t do very well. It probably could have done a lot better on the Rear test, but that’s just the way the dice fall.

 

Weapon: Multi-Melta (2d10+16 12pen) (Melta)
Front- 5 hits: 2 Turret, 3 Weapon
30,23,29,31,26= 0,0,0,0,0 (1 RF)
Effect: Total SI 69/70, (No Effect)
Side- 4 hits: 2 Motive, 1 Hull, 1 Weapon
24,25,30,34= 1,2,7,11 (0 RFs)
Effect: Total SI 49/70 (Very Poor Effect)
Rear- 3 hits: 2 Weapon, 1 Motive
26,31,29= 13,18,16 (1 RF)
Effect: Total SI 23/70 Weapon jammed (Poor Effect)

Overall: Yet another big letdown; the Multi-melta just doesn’t have the damage dice to stack up with other weapon even if it does have good penetration. Had the attacks been made at short range, however; a kill might have been scored on the rear test and a respectable amount of damage would have been added to the other two facings.

 

Weapon: Plasma Cannon (3d10+10 10pen) (Maximal setting)
Front- 2 hits, 1 Weapon, 1 Hull
17,36= 0,1 (1 RF)
Effect: Total SI 69/70 Weapon takes -10 for 1d5 (No Effect)
Side- 3 hits: 2 Hull, 1 Motive
27,24,32= 2,0,7 (0 RFs)
Effect: Total SI 61/70, (Very Poor Effect)
Rear- 2 hits: 1 Motive, 1 Hull
32,34= 17,19 (2 RFs)
Effect: Total SI 34/70, Motive Systems Impaired, random crewman injured (Moderate Effect)

Overall: The Plasma Cannon simply doesn’t cut it in an anti-armor role. The only way it can really be effective is if it is set to Maximal mode, meaning its fire rate is slowed considerably. Despite the fact that I only made 3 attacks with it in this test, I think it did pretty well, it’s just too slow though. You also run the rest of Overheat when on Maximal, not to mention the gun eats ammo like crazy.

 

Weapon: Autocannon (3d10+8 6pen)
Front- 2 hits: 2 Turret
15,33= 0,0 (1 RF)
Effect: Total SI 69/70 (No Effect)
Side- 4 hits: 3 Hull, 1 Turret
26,23,23,29= 0,0,0,0 (1 RF)
Effect: Total SI 69/70 (No Effect)
Rear- 5 hits: 2 Hull, 1 Weapon, 2 Turret
25,20,24,30,34= 8,3,7,0,0 (2 RFs)
Effect: Total SI 50/70 (Very Poor Effect)

Overall: If you have a Leman Russ rolling your way and you have an Autocannon, don’t even bother. Just drop it and run.

 

Weapon: Krak Missile (3d10+8 8pen)
Front- 4 hits: 1 Motive, 1 Hull, 2 Turret
36,15,27,20= 0,0,0,0 (1 RF)
Effect: Total SI 69/70 (No Effect)
Side- 4 hits: 1 Hull, 3 Motive
29,25,18,31= 2,0,0,4 (2 RFs)
Effect: Total SI 63/70 Possible new facing (Alost No Effect)
Rear- 3 hits: 2 Hull, 1 Motive
18,30,28= 1,13,11 (1 RF)
Effect: Total SI 45/70, Vehicle out of control (Very Poor Effect)

Overall: Once again a stable anti-armor weapon proves completely useless against armor. The only thing these anti-tank missiles are capable of is dinging the paint pretty much.

 

Weapon: Hunter-Killer Missile (3d10+6 6pen)
Front- 5 hits: 2 Weapon, 1 Motive, 1 Hull, 1 Turret
23,20,17,27,28= 0,0,0,0,0 (0 RFs)
Effect: Total SI 70/70 (No Effect)
Side- 5 hits: 2 Hull, 2 Weapon, 1 Turret
19,20,23,24,10= 0,0,0,0,0 (1 RF)
Effect: Total SI 69/70 (No Effect)
Rear-5 hits: 3 Hull, 2 Motive
16,20,20,27,19= 0,1,1,8,0 (1 RF)
Effect: Total SI 60/70, Possible crew stun (Very Poor Effect)

Overall: Sure they have a good hit rate, but even the small reduction in damage makes them even worse than Krak Missiles.

********************

********************

Target: Chimera IFV
Armor- 35/28/20
SI- 35

Weapon: Battle Cannon (3d10+10 8pen)
Front- 4 hits: 3 Hull, 1 Turret
31,20,34,22= 4,0,7,0 (1 RF)
Effect: Total SI 24/35, Reduce frontal armor by 1d10 (Very Poor Effect)
Side- 5 hits: 2 Turret, 1 Weapon, 2 Hull
24,22,25,28,27= 0,2,5,8,0 (1 RF)
Effect: Total SI 14/35, (Very Poor Effect)
Rear- 1 hit: 1 Hull
31= 19 (0 RFs)
Effect: Total SI 16/35 (Good Effect)

Overall: I’ve very surprised at how poorly the Battle Cannon did against the Chimera. Even a large number of hits on its front and sides didn’t get it down very low. The one shot from the rear was very nice, and if another one or two had hit it might have been destroyed. Had AT shells been used the side test probably would have resulted in destruction as well.

 

Weapon: Vanquisher Cannon (3d10+10 16pen) (Accurate)
Front- 4 hits: 1 Hull, 1 Turret, 1 Weapon, 1 Motive
34,36,36,32= 15,17,17,12 (0 RFs)
Effect: Vehicle Destroyed after 3 hits. (Moderate Effect)
Side- 1 hit: 1 Weapon
25= 17 (0 RFs)
Effect: Total SI 18/35 (Good Effect)
Rear- 3 hits: 2 Weapon, 1 Hull
25,28,39= 21,24,35 (2 RFs)
Effect: Vehicle Destroyed after 2 Hits (Very Good Effect)

Overall: The Vanquisher did a LOT better in these tests, however; I think it still look a little too long to kill the target in most cases.


Weapon: Las Cannon (5d10+10 10pen) (Proven 3)
Front- 2 hits: 1 Hull, 1 Weapon
41,43= 16,18 (1 RF)
Effect: Total SI 1/35, Frontal armored reduced by 1d10 (Very Good Effect)
Side- 6 hits: 2 Weapon, 2 Hull, 1 Motive, 1 Turret
25,35,43,46,41,34= 7,17,25,28,23,16 (1 RF)
Effect: Vehicle Destroyed after 3 hits (Good Effect)
Rear- 4 hits: 2 Turret, 1 Motive, 1 Hull
34,42,38,43= 9,17,28,33 (1 RF)
Effect: Vehicle Destruction after 3 hits (Good Effect)

Overall: The Las Cannon preformed quite well I think, it could have done better, but it did alright.


Weapon: Multi-Melta (2d10+16 12pen) (Melta)
Front- 2 hits: 2 Hull
28,31= 5,8 (0 RFs)
Effect: Total SI 22/35 (Poor Effect)
Side- 5 hits: 1 Motive, 1 Weapon, 3 Hull
29,29,29,26,19= 13,13,13,10,3 (0 RFs)
Effect: Vehicle Destroyed after 4 hits (Moderate Effect)
Rear- 4 hits: 3 Weapon, 1 Motive
28,24,32,30= 20,16,24,22 (0 RFs)
Effect: Vehicle Destruction after 3 hits (Poor Effect)

Overall: Again, despite having good Penetration, the Multi-Melta just doesn’t have the damage dice to back it up. Had the attacks been made at short range, then the doubled penetration would have resulted in much quicker destruction of the target.


Weapon: Plasma Cannon (3d10+10 10pen) (Maximal setting)
Front- 2 hits: 1 Hull, 1 Turret
32,22= 7,0 (1 RF)
Effect: Total SI 27/35 (Poor Effect)
Side- 2 hits: 1 Weapon, 1 Hull
22,25= 4,7 (0 RFs)
Effect: Total SI 24/35 (Very Poor Effect)
Rear- 3 hit: 1 Weapon, 1 Hull, 1 Turret
28,34,13= 18,24,0 (2 RFs)
Effect: 7 Critical Hull Damage, Open Topped, 20% chance last attack hit all crew (Good Effect)

Overall: Again the Plasma Cannon’s slow rate of fire when set to Maximal hurts it a lot. That being said, I rolled rather well on the rear and ended up doing a good amount of damage.


Weapon: Autocannon (3d10+8 6pen)
Front- 4 hits: 1 Weapon, 1 Motive, 2 Turret
21,25,23,17= 0,0,0,0 (3 RFs)
Effect: Total SI 33/35 (No Effect)
Side- 4 hits: 3 Hull, 1 Weapon
35,28,13,19= 13,6,0,0 (0 RFs)
Effect: Total SI 16/35 (Moderate Effect)
Rear- 3 hits: 1 Motive, 1 Turret, 1 Weapon
25,18,26= 11,0,12 (1 RF)
Effect: Total SI 12/35, Gunner stunned for 1 round (Moderate Effect)

Overall: The Autocannon just isn’t that great of an anti-armor weapon. While it has decent damage dice, it simply lacks the penetration.


Weapon: Krak Missile (3d10+8) (Proven 2)
Front- 3 hits: 2 Hull, 1 Turret
29,27,16= 2,0,0 (1 RF)
Effect: Total SI 33/35, Random crewman injured (Almost No Effect)
Side- 3 hits: 1 Weapon, 1 Turret, 1 Hull
24,26,28= 4,0,8 (0 TFs)
Effect: Total SI 23/35 (Poor Effect)
Rear- 3 hits: 2 Hull, 1 Weapon
22,20,24= 10,8,12 (1 RF)
Effect: Total SI 5/35, Shooting at -10 for 1d5 (Good Effect)

Overall: Yet more poor performance from a staple anti-armor weapon.


Weapon: Hunter-Killer Missile (3d10+6 6pen)
Front- 5 hits: 1 Weapon, 2 Hull, 1 Motive, 1 Turret
23,24,19,22,22= 0,0,0,0,0 (2 RFs)
Effect: Total SI 33/35 (No Effect)
Side- 5 hits: 1 Turret, 3 Hull, 2 Weapon
13,26,29,17,29= 0,4,7,0,7 (3 RFs)
Effect: Total SI 17/35, Gun jammed, Crew possibly stunned, -20 crew actions until repaired (Poor Effect)
Rear- 3 hits: 1 Motive, 1 Turret, 1 Hull
23,20,13= 9,6,0 (1 RF)
Effect: Total SI 20/35, Vehicle out of control (Poor Effect)

Overall: Again, the missile hits a lot, but it hard does any damage, so what’s the point?

********************

********************

Target: Defiler
Armor- 39/35/25
SI-55

Weapon: Battle Cannon (3d10+10 8pen)
Front- 2 hits: 1 Hull, 1 Turret
30,26= 0,0 (1 RFs)
Effect: Total SI 53/55 (No Effect)
Side- 3 hits: 1 Weapon, 2 Hull
28,17,21= 1,0,0 (1 RF)
Effect: Total SI 54/55, Weapon Locked/Damaged (Almost No Effect)
Rear- 6 hits: 4 Hull, 1 Motive, 1 Turret
24,23,33,35,35,24= 7,6,16,18,18,7 (4 RFs)
Effect: Vehicle Destroyed after 5 hits (Poor Effect)

Overall: Once again the Battle Cannon shows that it’s a poor choice for taking on enemy armor. Even using AT shells wouldn’t have made the front and side test much difference, and only sped up the rear test by a little.

 

Weapon: Vanquisher Cannon (3d10+10 16pen) (Accurate)
Front- 3 hits: 1 Hull, 1 Turret, 1 Weapon
42,19,17= 19,0,0 (0 RFs)
Effect: Total SI 36/55 (Moderate Effect)
Side- 3 hits: 1Hull, 1 Weapon, 1 Turret
24,30,27= 5,11,8 (0 RFs)
Effect: Total SI 31/55 (Poor Effect)
Rear- 6 hits: 3 Hull, 1 Weapon, 1 Motive, 1 Turret
26,25,37,24,27,40= 17,16,28,15,18,31 (1 RF)
Effect: Vehicle Destroyed after 4 hits (Poor Effect)

Overall: While it didn’t do as bad as it did against the Leman Russ, it still didn’t do that well.

 

Weapon: Las Cannon (5d10+10 10pen) (Proven 3)
Front- 3 hits: 2 Turret, 1 Hull
36,39,37= 7,10,8 (0 RFs)
Effect: Total SI 30/55 (Moderate Effect)
Side- 2 hits: 1 Motive, 1 Hull
37,39= 12,14 (1 RF)
Effect: Total SI 29/55 (Good Effect)
Rear- 4 hits: 2 Hull, 1 Turret, 1 Motive
41,35,45,45= 26,6,28,30 (0 RFs)
Effect: Vehicle Destroyed after 4 hits (Moderate Effect)

Overall: I think this has been the best showing of the Las Cannon so far. It did quite well in all tests, even if it only managed one kill.

 

Weapon: Multi-Melta (2d10+16 12pen) (Melta)
Front- 3 hits: 1 Weapon, 2 Hull
23,22,27= 0,0,0 (0 RFs)
Effect: Total SI 55/55 (No Effect)
Side- 6 hits: 2 Motive, 2 Weapon, 1 Hull, 1 Turret
24,28,26,34,23,23= 1,5,3,11,0,0 (1 RF)
Effect: Total SI 38/55, -10 on shooting for 1 round (Very Poor Effect)
Rear- 3 hits: 2 Motive, 1 Turret
32,20,25= 19,3,12 (1 RF)
Effect: Total SI 21/55, Restricted to tactical speed for 1 turn (Moderate Effect)

Overall: Again, the Multi-Melta loses out because of its low damage dice. I’m starting to think the only way it would make a decent anti-armor weapon is if you made all your attacks from short range for an extra 12 penetration.

 

Weapon: Plasma Cannon (3d10+10 10pen) (Maximal setting)
Front- 2 hits: 1 Hull, 1 Weapon
25,27= 0,0 (0 RFs)
Effect: Total SI 55/55 (No Effect)
Side- 2 hits: 1 Hull, 1 Weapon
22,31= 0,6 (0 RFs)
Effect: Total SI 49/55 (Very Poor Effect)
Rear- 1 hit: 1 Turret
26= 0 (0 RFs)
Effect: Total SI 55/55 (No Effect)

Overall: Even scoring 2 out of three hits, the Plasma Cannon was unable to do much of anything. To be fair, however; the rear shot was a turret hit so it’s not exactly a fair representation of what it could have done.

 

Weapon: Autocannon (3d10+8 6pen)
Front- 2 hits: 1 Weapon, 1 Hull
36,27= 3,0 (2 RFs)
Effect: Total SI 51/55, Gunner stunned for 1 round (Almost No Effect)
Side- 6 hits: 3 Hull, 1 Motive, 1 Turret, 1 Weapon
27,26,38,26,19,27= 0,0,4,0,0,0 (3 RFs)
Effect: Total SI 49/55, Burst gas line -20 to crew actions until fixed (Almost No Effect)
Rear- 3 hits: 2 Hull, 1 Motive
19,25,23= 0,6,4 (1 RF)
Effect: Total SI 45/55, Possible crew stunned (Very Poor Effect)

Overall: Lacking any real penetration, the Autocannon once again fails to be any sort of effective against armor.

 

Weapon: Krak Missile (3d10+8 8pen) (Proven 2)
Front- 6 hits: 2 Motive, 3 Hull, 1 Weapon
29,31,25,23,22,32= 0,0,0,0,0,1 (3 RFs)
Effect: Total SI 52/55, Front armor reduced by 1d10 (Almost No Effect)
Side- 1 hit: 1 Hull
20= 0 (0 RFs)
Effect: Total SI 55/55 (No Effect)
Rear- 5 hits: 3 Hull, 1 Turret, 1 Motive
22,26,27,20,21= 5,9,10,3,4 (0 RFs)
Effect: Total SI 24/55 (Very Poor Effect)

Overall: Yet again one of the most basic of anti-armor weapons fails to do anything at all.

 

Weapon: Hunter-Killer Missile (3d10+6 6pen)
Front- 4 hits: 2 Motive, 1 Hull, 1 Weapon
20,26,17,23= 0,0,0,0 (1 RF)
Effect: Total SI 54/55 (No Effect)
Side- 5 hits: 2 Weapon, 1 Hull, 1 Motive, 1 Turret
31,20,26,28,26= 2,0,0,0,0 (0 RFs)
Effect: Total SI 53/55 (Almost No Effect)
Rear- 5 hits: 3 Hull, 1 Motive, 1 Weapon
15,18,22,27,17= 0,0,3,8,0 (1 RF)
Effect: Total SI 44/55 (Very Poor Effect)

Overall: Again the HK Missile proves completely useless.

********************

********************

Target: Trukk
Armor- 32/27/25
SI- 29

Weapon: Battle Cannon (3d10+10 8pen)
Front- 4 hits: 3 Hull, 1 Turret
32,21,26,24= 8,0,2,0 (1 RF)
Effect: Total SI 19/29, Burst fuel line -20 to crew action until fixed (Poor Effect)
Side- 3 hits: 1 Weapon, 2 Motive
27,25,15= 8,6,0 (0RFs)
Effect: Total SI 15/29 (Moderate Effect)
Rear- 2 hits: 2 Turret
24,23= 0,0 (0 RFs)
Effect: Total SI 29/29 (No Effect)

Overall: The Trukk turned out to have a thicker hide than I anticipated and the Battle Cannon turned out to not be that great. Had AT shells been used it might have managed to get the target down into criticals on some of the tests, but I doubt it would have resulted in a kill.

 

Weapon: Vanquisher Cannon (3d10+10 16pen) (Accurate)
Front- 4 hits: 3 Motive, 1 Hull
37,29,19,33= 21,13,3,17 (1RF)
Effect: Vehicle Destroyed after 4 hits (Good Effect)
Side- 4 hits: 2 Turret, 2 Hull
24,30,35,26= 8,19,19,15 (1 RF)
Effect: Vehicle Destroyed after 3 hits (Very Good Effect)
Rear- 5 hits: 2 Weapon, 3 Motive
45,31,37,27,41= 36,22,28,18,32 (1 RF)
Effect: Vehicle Destroyed after 2 hits (Excellent Effect)

Overall: I think this has been the best showing of any weapon so far. The Vanquisher even came close to killing the Truckk with just one hit to the rear.

 

Weapon: Las Cannon (5d10+10 10pen) (Proven 3)
Front- 2 hits: 2 Hull
43,33= 21,22 (2 RFs)
Effect: Vehicle Destroyed after 2 hits (Very Good Effect)
Side- 5 hits: 1 Hull, 3 Turret, 1 Weapon
32,40,29,35,44= 15,18,7,18,27 (2 RFs)
Effect: Vehicle Destroyed after 3 hits (Good Effect)
Rear- 3 hits: 1 Turret, 1 Motive, 1 Hull
35,50,46= 20,35,31 (2 RFs)
Effect: Vehicle Destroyed after 2 hits (Excellent Effect)

Overall: I think the numbers speak for themselves. That Trukk never stood a chance. I think these are the highest overkill numbers I’ve seen so far.

 

Weapon: Multi-Melta (2d10+16 12pen) (Melta)
Front- 3 hits: 2 Motive, 1 Turret
25,28,26= 5,8,6 (0RFs)
Effect: Total SI 10/29 (Moderate Effect)
Side- 3 hits: 1 Turret, 1 Motive, 1 Weapon
24,33,21= 9,18,6 (1 RF)
Effect: 4 Critical damage to weapon, Weapon Locked/Disabled (Good Effect)
Rear- 5 hits: 4 Hull, 1 Motive
24,20,31,23,31= 11,7,18,10,18 (0 RFs)
Effect: Vehicle Destroyed after 4 hits (Moderate Effect)

Overall: Again the Multi-Melta would have done much better had the attacks been made at short range. In this case however, the Trukk’s low SI rating wasn’t that hard for the Melta to put a decent dent in.

 

Weapon: Plasma Cannon (3d10+10 10pen) (Maximal setting)
Front- 2 hits: 2 Hull
25,31= 3,9 (1 RF)
Effect: Total SI 16/29, Crew possibly stunned (Moderate Effect)
Side- 2 hits: 2 Hull
26,21= 9,4 (0 RFs)
Effect: Total SI 15/29 (Poor Effect)
Rear- 1 hit: 1 Weapon
31= 16 (0 RFs)
Effect: Total SI 13/29 (Good Effect)

Overall: For once the Plasma Cannon doesn’t do completely bad, and it has the Trukk’s low SI rating to thank for it.

 

Weapon: Autocannon (3d10+8 6pen)
Front- 3 hits: 1 Turret, 2 Hull
31,26,15= 5,0,0 (3 RFs)
Effect: Total SI 22/29, Weapon jammed (Poor Effect)
Side- 2 hits: 2 Hull
36,15= 15,0 (1 RF)
Effect: Vehicle Destroyed by Ramshackle RF(10) after 1 hit (Super Effective)
Rear- 4 hits: 3 Hull, 1 Turret
20,35,24,33= 1,16,0,14 (1 RF)
Effect: 2 Critical Hull damage, burst gas line -20 crew actions until fixed, reduce rear armor by 1d10 (Good Effect)

Overall: And we see the first OHK of the testing, however it has more to do with the target than the gun. Without a doubt, Ramshackle is not a trait you want to have on your vehicles.

 

Weapon: Krak Missile (3d10+8 8pen) (Proven 2)
Front- 3 hits: 1 Turret, 2 Hull
26,30,22= 2,5,0 (1 RF)
Effect: Total SI 22/29, Frontal armored reduced by half, possible crew injured (Poor Effect)
Side- 3 hits: 1 Hull, 1 Motive, 1 Weapon
24,22,25= 5,3,6 (1 RF)
Effect: Total SI 15/29, Weapon Destroyed, All crew injured, Possible fire (Good Effect)
Rear- 3 hits: 1 Motive, 2 Weapon
20,32,19= 3,15,2 (1 RF)
Effect: Total SI 9/29, Weapon Disabled (Good Effect)

Overall: I think this is the first test where the Krak missile wasn’t complete crap. Once again the brutality of the Ramshackle trait makes itself know as well.

 

Weapon: Hunter-Killer Missile (3d10+6 6pen)
Front- 6 hits: 4 Hull, 1 Weapon, 1 Motive
28,13,20,18,16,22= 2,0,0,0,0,0 (1 RF)
Effect: Total SI 27/29, Frontal armor reduced by half, Chance all crew injured, On Fire (Almost No Effect)
Side- 5 hits: 2 Hull, 1 Motive, 2 Turret
31,24,23,28,27= 10,3,0,7,1 (3 RFs)
Effect: Vehicle Destroyed by Ramshackle RF (10) after 5 hits (Moderate Effect)
Rear- 4 hits: 2 Hull, 2 Weapon
22,25,31,20= 3,6,12,1 (2 RFs)
Effect: Vehicle Destroyed by Ramchackle RF(10) after 2 hits (Very Good Effect)

Overall: For the first time the HK Missile actually does SOMETHING, and even though the kills were only because of the Ramshackle trait, it still managed to at least do some damage on the side and rear tests for a change.

 

 


 



#2 Varn

Varn

    Member

  • Members
  • 45 posts

Posted 15 July 2012 - 03:26 PM

ON WEAPONS:

So after all of that I’ve been able to come to the following conclusions about the various weapons I tested:

Battle Cannon: Mediocre overall, the BC isn’t that great for taking on most forms of armor. Its real strength lines in busting up infantry swarms. AT shells do make it at least semi-viable for taking on armor however, and are an absolute must if you even think you might be fighting any.

Vanquisher: My first few tests with this came out quite poorly, but that was before I realized that its damage had already been booted in the Week One update. Overall a good anti-armor weapon, it shows a marked reduction in performance going up against heavy armor however. I think the real problem likes in the vehicle stats themselves more than anything.

Las Cannon: The only weapon that never really had any problems. With five damage dice gives a large chance for RFs in addition to good added damage and penetration. If anything, the Las Cannon might be a little too powerful. This is the most practical and effective anti-armor weapon by far.

Multi-Melta: Surprisingly not that great. It has only 2 damage dice so it has a low RF rate, a fact that it tries to make up for with good pen, but it just doesn’t work. The Melta quality could spell doom for anything, but the fact that you need to be suicidally close to your target makes it not worth taking. For close in fighting with heavy infantry however, this is a dream of a weapon.

Plasma Cannon: A bit of a mixed bag. It’s slightly below average for a heavy weapon overall, and while the Maximal setting really gives it a good damage boost, it kills it’s rate of fire and makes it use a lot of ammo. Threats as big as enemy tanks need to be taken down quickly, and that’s something you just can’t do with this weapon.

Autocannon: A staple heavy weapon of the Imperial Guard, it’s a good weapon for taking on heavy infantry, but next to useless for taking on armor. It just doesn’t have the penetration needed.

Krak Missile: Probably the most common anti-armor weapon in the game, it’s almost next to useless. This is strange, because on paper it’s not that much weaker than a lot of other weapons tested here, but it regularly failed to do much of anything against most of the targets. This is a very bad trait to have when you are supposed to be the catch-all go-to anti-armor weapon out there.

HK Missile: Without a doubt THE most USELESS weapon here. Sure it’s got a +20 to hit, but that means absolute **** when you can’t deal any damage. And again, it makes no sense. Fluff wise these are used as heavy hitting vehicle launched anti-armor weapons. If the Krak Missile is along the lines of an AT4/M2CG then the HK should be like a Javelin ATGM. And while you can argue that the guidance system takes up a lot of space that would normally be filled with explosives, HK missiles are supposed to be much larger than normal Krak missiles anyway, with longer range and more hitting power.

THE VERDICT:

Battle Cannon: AT shells should have their Penitration increased from 12 to 15 and should remove the Blast quality from the weapon.

Autocannon: While a good weapon overall, a type of AP ammo with Pen 10 or 12 would be nice to see.

Krak Missile: A major damage boost is needed here. I propose the new state line be one of the following:
3d10+10X Pen10 Concussive 3 Proven 3
3d10+8X Pen12 Concussive 3 Proven 3
3d10+10X Pen12 Concussive 3 Proven 2

Hunter-Killer Missile: Again, a big damage bonus is needed here. These are supposed to be big vehicle launched anti-armor missiles here, not normal Krak Missiles with less power and a fancy seeker head. New stat line: 500m 3d10+10X Pen12


ON VEHICLES:

After all the testing I can safely say that YES, vehicles are quite hard to kill. The weapons in this test had it easy. They were firing at stationary targets that didn’t have any infantry support and that were not fighting back. Even so, in most cases, even after an effective SIX rounds of combat, few kills where scored. Sure some test only a few hits, but there were a lot more that had 5-6 hits and still no kill, or even critical damage. This had lead me to think that one of two things happened: One, FFG just sort of threw some numbers down without testing anything and thought it looked good. Two, some testing was done, and it was decided that PCs weren’t really supposed to go up against most vehicles on their won (especially Imperial ones). It seems like the IG vehicles are so robust because they are supposed to be used by the players over the course of several session and they are not really supposed to be used as enemies.

This kind of sucks if you want your players to fight Traitor Guard or Rebles/Mutants using stolen equipment; there just isn’t any way they are going to be able to fight even a Chimera unless they have their own heavy armor support or suddenly find a catch of heavy weapons for each of them and they magically gain the training needed to use the heavy weapons.

Leman Russ MBT: While they are might war machines that serve as the backbone of the Imperial Guard’s armor forces, they are way too hard to kill. Even in a straight up tank on tank fight it would take forever of they just pounding away at each other round after round and round; that really bogs down gameplay and makes things kind of dull. And if you have two forced engaging on in open ground, instead of some long range exchanges and then some short close in clean up work, you suddenly have a nightmare of movement and facing info you need to keep track of because it takes so bloody long for them to kill each other.

Chimera: I WISH IFVs were this sturdy in real life. While this will probably be a staple vehicle that the players will keep with them and use a lot, the fact that it can shrug off Vanquisher hits like it can is ridiculous.

Defiler: I’ll be the first to admit that I’m no expert on Chaos forces, but I figured their primary armored unit would be Leman Russ’s or Predators and Chimera’s, and since I’ve already done LMs and Chimera’s and I don’t have stats for a Predator, I did these instead. Overall, they are a bit hard to kill, but not as bad at LMs, I think only a little toning down might be needed.

Trukk: This is just hilarious. The Ramshackle trait is a fickle mistress and can lead to some hilarious outcomes. If anything, I think the Trukk might need to be beefed up a bit, just to make up for the fact that a single lucky hit can completely kill it from the get go.

THE VERDICT:

Leman Russ MBT: Reduce frontal armor to 40 and reduce SI to 60.

Chimera IFV: New armor stat line: 28/23/18

Defiler: New armor stat line: 35/30/20, Reduce SI to 50.

Trukk: New armor stat line: 25/25/15, Increase SI to 30.

Now there were a lot of vehicles that I didn’t test, but I think all this went to show that they probably need some tweaking as well. I was specifically asked to test the Sentinel, I I’ll probably do that later, but I think it will probably be a lot weaker than any other IG vehicle. Things like the LM Demolisher and Hellhound I can understand having slightly heavier armor, as they are meant to go right into the thick of fighting and need a little more survivability at the cost of speed and transport capacity. Again, I’m no expert on Chaos and really don’t have any experience with their other vehicles in the book, and the only thing I know about Dark Eldar is that they like to **** people, so someone else is going to have to pass judgment on their stuff.

I will say this though when it comes to Super Heavies: I think it mechanically and thematically makes sense for them to be rolling behemoths of impossible to kill carnage and destruction. I specifically didn’t test the Baneblade because I see it in a class of its own, almost up there with things like Titans and the smaller model fortress crawlers.
 



#3 Plushy

Plushy

    Member

  • Members
  • 810 posts

Posted 15 July 2012 - 03:51 PM

 I have to thank you for this. Amazing work.

 

Consider chucking a link to this into the Week X Update threads, as I think FFG needs to see this. 

Would you consider looking at my aircraft stats for balance?


My apologies to anyone I offend; FFG staff, playtesters, and forum users alike. 

 

Please check out my Dark Heresy to Only War conversion! You can find it on the main Only War forum. I'm always looking for more people to playtest it!


#4 Varn

Varn

    Member

  • Members
  • 45 posts

Posted 15 July 2012 - 03:56 PM

Plushy said:

 I have to thank you for this. Amazing work.

 

Consider chucking a link to this into the Week X Update threads, as I think FFG needs to see this. 

Would you consider looking at my aircraft stats for balance?

 

Sure, but since it took me several days to do all this and I'm dreaming about numbers in my sleep now, it might be a few days before i try to do anything like this again.



#5 Varn

Varn

    Member

  • Members
  • 45 posts

Posted 15 July 2012 - 04:34 PM

Something has just been brought to my attention:

Does the Concussive trait effect the crew/passengers inside a vehicle? If it does, then I think needs to be clarified in the entry for it.



#6 Dige

Dige

    Member

  • Members
  • 32 posts

Posted 15 July 2012 - 08:43 PM

Impressive!

Yup, the vehicles are powerful. I hope FFG reads this. Either vehicles should go down or weapons up (poor footslogging PCs, but that is what you should get if you go against an armoured behemoth.

However, few things:

  • The Point of Melta weapons is to get close if you are going against tanks. They are good against armoured infantry, but in Tabletop they really need to be within 6 inches of the tank to be really effective. Same should apply in Only War (not inches, but metres here :D). Not testing them in the way they are supposed to be used kinda defeats the point.
  • Did you take into account the size bonuses to hit? The vehicles often give +20 to +30 to hit due to size, and your hit rates seem quite low if you used them.

Overall, great stuff there, and I hope FFG gets the point! And test the Sentinel, it seemed quite weak when I read it.

--Dige

PS: I think H.B.M.C wrote the vehicle stats as a freelancer, so you could try to contact him directly. He is frequently on these forums, which is nice.



#7 Varn

Varn

    Member

  • Members
  • 45 posts

Posted 15 July 2012 - 08:56 PM

With the exception to the few things I pointed out, I don't think weapon damages should really be upped. The system is already super lethal, making it any more so will just make it unfun to play.

Where can I find these to-hit bonuses in the book? And to be honest, with a BS target of 60, I was hitting 3-4 times most of the times out of 6 attacks, which makes perfect sense really.



#8 Musclewizard

Musclewizard

    Member

  • Members
  • 320 posts

Posted 15 July 2012 - 10:11 PM

Varn said:

With the exception to the few things I pointed out, I don't think weapon damages should really be upped. The system is already super lethal, making it any more so will just make it unfun to play.

Where can I find these to-hit bonuses in the book? And to be honest, with a BS target of 60, I was hitting 3-4 times most of the times out of 6 attacks, which makes perfect sense really.

The thing is your BS Target should have been higher than 60.

Base Skill 40

Single Shot +10

Half Action aim +10

Size: Hulking: +10, Massive +20, Enormous, +30

Shooting vehicle moved normal speed: -10

Shooting vehicle moved twice normal speed -20

Since most vehicles are enourmous your BS target would probably have been 90.



#9 borithan

borithan

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,146 posts

Posted 15 July 2012 - 11:59 PM

Part of the problem is giving vehicles "wounds". It doesn't make much sense realistically, and it complicates how much damage things should do against a target. Armoured vehicles tend to either be completely unhurt by something or take some sort of significant damage, rather than the chipping away effect wounds create. In this was I think the original Vehicle Apocrypha was superior (though it has its problems, for example I feel the utterly random nature of damage after penetration isn't fantastic, and I wasn't convinced of the Armour values vs the damage of weapons).



#10 Musclewizard

Musclewizard

    Member

  • Members
  • 320 posts

Posted 16 July 2012 - 12:11 AM

borithan said:

Part of the problem is giving vehicles "wounds". It doesn't make much sense realistically, and it complicates how much damage things should do against a target. Armoured vehicles tend to either be completely unhurt by something or take some sort of significant damage, rather than the chipping away effect wounds create. In this was I think the original Vehicle Apocrypha was superior (though it has its problems, for example I feel the utterly random nature of damage after penetration isn't fantastic, and I wasn't convinced of the Armour values vs the damage of weapons).

I don't think vehicle wounds are a problem. The problem of some shots dealing no significant damage to a vehicle (that is other than reducing wounds) is negated by RF. This is among the reasons why I like to have lots of dice per vehicle attack so the chance of RF increases.
I also like SI from a mechanical standpoint since it handles exactly the same as player wounds thus leading to less rules needed to explain how stuff works differently for vehicles.



#11 N0-1_H3r3

N0-1_H3r3

    Former Contributing Freelance Writer

  • Members
  • 3,292 posts

Posted 16 July 2012 - 01:08 AM

borithan said:

Part of the problem is giving vehicles "wounds". It doesn't make much sense realistically, and it complicates how much damage things should do against a target. Armoured vehicles tend to either be completely unhurt by something or take some sort of significant damage, rather than the chipping away effect wounds create. In this was I think the original Vehicle Apocrypha was superior (though it has its problems, for example I feel the utterly random nature of damage after penetration isn't fantastic, and I wasn't convinced of the Armour values vs the damage of weapons).

The addition of structural integrity to vehicles was a deliberate measure to ensure that vehicles weren't too fragile, as it happens - if a vehicle goes straight from armour to damage tables, then it goes down too quickly and explodes with absurd frequency.

I think that they've moved too far in the opposite direction, from the Rites of Battle entries onwards - IMO, the armour values of Astartes vehicles were overinflated by about 5 points there (especially as we have direct comparisons in the form of a Rhino in both Into the Storm and Rites of Battle), and Only War seems to have followed that trend without any commensurate boost in the damage of supposedly high-power weapons (which is something I've been banging on about behind-the-scenes since Black Crusade was in development).

The base scales I've worked out for damage (averages), toughness and vehicle armour seem theoretically sound, at least during my own testing:

Wargame Str3 - avg damage 8-9

Wargame Str4 - avg damage 14-15

Wargame Str 5 - avg damage 19-20

Wargame Str 6 - avg damage 24-25
Wargame Str 7 - avg damage 29-30
Wargame Str 8 - avg damage 34-35
Wargame Str 9 - avg damage 39-40
Wargame Str 10 - avg damage 44-45

In essence, for every point increase of strength on the wargame scale, an approximate increase of 5 damage (or 1d10) is needed. Some leeway exists for weapon qualities (tearing improved average damage without changing minimum and maximum, proven increases minimum, etc), and to depict certain weapon concepts (weapons that overwhelm by mass of fire over raw damage will tend to lower damage-per-hit but high RoF), but it's solid and fits nicely against things like lasguns, bolters (mortal and Astartes ones sit either side of the Str 4 avg damage equivalent) and the lascannon and rail gun at the higher end… but there are lots of guns in the middle that don't fit this scale.

Toughness bonus works along a similar pattern - assume TB of 3-4 covers the bulk of humanity (Toughness 3 in the wargame), using TB4 as a good example value. Every increase in Toughness along the wargame scale should be represented by an equivalent +3-5 TB (whether from actual toughness or Unnatural Toughness) in 40kRP. So T4 becomes TB8, T5 becomes TB12, T6 becomes TB16, T7 becomes TB20, and so forth.

Vehicle armour should scale along similar lines as well. In the wargame, damaging an AV10 vehicle is equivalent to wounding a T6 creature (the dice roll needed is the same), so that's a good scale to use. However, as creatures tend to have armour on top of toughness, vehicle armour needs a little boost upwards by comparison. In essence, you get AV10 (wargame) becoming Armour 18, AV11 becoming Armour 24, AV12 becoming Armour 30, AV13 becoming Armour 32 and AV14 becoming Armour 38.

As far as I can tell, those values provide a useful baseline to work from in regards to creature toughness, weapon damage and vehicle armour (infantry armour scaling has always seemed about right).


Writing Credits for Fantasy Flight Games: Into the Storm, Edge of the Abyss, Battlefleet Koronus, Hostile Acquisitions, Black Crusade Core Rulebook, First Founding, The Jericho Reach, The Soul Reaver, Only War, The Navis Primer and Ark of Lost Souls


#12 Varn

Varn

    Member

  • Members
  • 45 posts

Posted 16 July 2012 - 01:21 AM

Musclewizard said:

Varn said:

 

With the exception to the few things I pointed out, I don't think weapon damages should really be upped. The system is already super lethal, making it any more so will just make it unfun to play.

Where can I find these to-hit bonuses in the book? And to be honest, with a BS target of 60, I was hitting 3-4 times most of the times out of 6 attacks, which makes perfect sense really.

 

 

The thing is your BS Target should have been higher than 60.

Base Skill 40

Single Shot +10

Half Action aim +10

Size: Hulking: +10, Massive +20, Enormous, +30

Shooting vehicle moved normal speed: -10

Shooting vehicle moved twice normal speed -20

Since most vehicles are enourmous your BS target would probably have been 90.

 

You know what, I hope you step on a ******* Lego. Thanks for invalidating all my bloody work!

The only thing worth a damn in all that mess now are the tests with 1-2 hits or 6. But it still completely invalidates all of my assertions about weapon effectiveness. You basically have to double everything. I mean, it still all works I guess if your moving around and fighting, or at least your target is, but with a mean target score of 90, damage is going to add up more quickly.

At least what I said about the HK and Krak Missile still hold true. I hit 5-6 times out of 6 with those plenty of times and barely ever managed to scratch the paint on most targets.



#13 Musclewizard

Musclewizard

    Member

  • Members
  • 320 posts

Posted 16 July 2012 - 02:43 AM

Varn said:

 

You know what, I hope you step on a ******* Lego. Thanks for invalidating all my bloody work!

 

What are you even talking about?
The only thing the to-hit rate invalidates is the changes you've proposed (since those are probably based on the total damage dealt over 6 shots and not the damage per hit) and even those still seem reasonable the way they are.

Just because vehicles are easier to hit doesn't mean that they are easier to damage which is the primary problem that seems to afflict the imperial vehicles.
Personally I would have taken the to-hit roll out of the whole equation and just rolled directly for hit location instead. A reduction in variables is always helpful I feel. But nevertheless your test showed something that a lot of people already suspected. Vehicles are very tough and various weapons that are meant to combat vehicles just aren't capable of damaging them significantly.



#14 Musclewizard

Musclewizard

    Member

  • Members
  • 320 posts

Posted 16 July 2012 - 05:35 AM

Inspired by this thread (or actually a discussion about the same topic on a certain imageboard) I've created a little Matlab GUI that can be used to enter any weapon in the 40k RPG systems and hit any vehicle target.
It calculates the Hits to Kill and the Rounds to Kill (based on actuall rolls not just averages) and it also prints the damage dealt to the console.
The program is probably rather unstable right now since file I/O can be a bit tricky.
I'm probably going to release it at some point in the future but right now here's a little sample.

(Moved to the next post since its rather length).



#15 Musclewizard

Musclewizard

    Member

  • Members
  • 320 posts

Posted 16 July 2012 - 05:44 AM

Lascannon 5d10+10 Pen: 10 (the Proven(3) is ignored for simplicities sake)
vs.
Leman Russ Battle Tank

SI: 70, Armor 45/35/25
Firing at: Front Armor
100 Tests
To-Hit Chance: 75 (Base Skill 35+single shot (+10)+half action aim(+10)+size: enormous (+20))

Results:
Average Hits to Kill: 19.02
Average Rounds to Kill: 25.64

I've also added support for Righteous Fury against Vehicles (either in simple form were it just tells you every time one was scored or a detailed one that actually lists all the effects). Since this uses a rather large section of the book I've decided to not display RF for this sample log.
 

Sample of the combat log:

 

Target hit - Motive System Hit - Vehicle took 0 damage
Target missed
Target hit - Turret Hit - Vehicle took 0 damage
Target hit - Hull Hit - Vehicle took 3 damage
Target hit - Turret Hit - Vehicle took 2 damage
Target hit - Weapon Hit - Vehicle took 0 damage
Target hit - Hull Hit - Vehicle took 3 damage
Target hit - Motive System Hit - Vehicle took 8 damage
Target hit - Weapon Hit - Vehicle took 0 damage
Target missed
Target hit - Motive System Hit - Vehicle took 9 damage
Target hit - Weapon Hit - Vehicle took 0 damage
Target hit - Motive System Hit - Vehicle took 0 damage
Target hit - Hull Hit - Vehicle took 11 damage
Target missed
Target missed
Target missed
Target hit - Hull Hit - Vehicle took 2 damage
Target hit - Hull Hit - Vehicle took 0 damage
Target hit - Turret Hit - Vehicle took 15 damage
Target missed
Target missed
Target hit - Motive System Hit - Vehicle took 11 damage
Target hit - Motive System Hit - Vehicle took 9 damage
Vehicle Destroyed after 24 rounds and 17 hits.
-----------------------------------------

Target missed
Target hit - Turret Hit - Vehicle took 8 damage
Target hit - Turret Hit - Vehicle took 13 damage
Target hit - Turret Hit - Vehicle took 0 damage
Target hit - Hull Hit - Vehicle took 0 damage
Target missed
Target missed
Target hit - Hull Hit - Vehicle took 0 damage
Target missed
Target hit - Turret Hit - Vehicle took 1 damage
Target hit - Weapon Hit - Vehicle took 0 damage
Target hit - Weapon Hit - Vehicle took 8 damage
Target hit - Hull Hit - Vehicle took 7 damage
Target hit - Motive System Hit - Vehicle took 14 damage
Target missed
Target hit - Motive System Hit - Vehicle took 0 damage
Target hit - Turret Hit - Vehicle took 7 damage
Target hit - Motive System Hit - Vehicle took 1 damage
Target hit - Motive System Hit - Vehicle took 0 damage
Target hit - Hull Hit - Vehicle took 13 damage
Vehicle Destroyed after 20 rounds and 15 hits.
-----------------------------------------

 



#16 borithan

borithan

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,146 posts

Posted 16 July 2012 - 11:35 AM

This is where I wish this forum used normal forum code so I could easily split quotes up…

N0-1_H3r3 said:

The addition of structural integrity to vehicles was a deliberate measure to ensure that vehicles weren't too fragile, as it happens - if a vehicle goes straight from armour to damage tables, then it goes down too quickly and explodes with absurd frequency.

I think that they've moved too far in the opposite direction, from the Rites of Battle entries onwards - IMO, the armour values of Astartes vehicles were overinflated by about 5 points there (especially as we have direct comparisons in the form of a Rhino in both Into the Storm and Rites of Battle), and Only War seems to have followed that trend without any commensurate boost in the damage of supposedly high-power weapons (which is something I've been banging on about behind-the-scenes since Black Crusade was in development).

The base scales I've worked out for damage (averages), toughness and vehicle armour seem theoretically sound, at least during my own testing:

Wargame Str3 - avg damage 8-9

Wargame Str4 - avg damage 14-15

Wargame Str 5 - avg damage 19-20

Wargame Str 6 - avg damage 24-25
Wargame Str 7 - avg damage 29-30
Wargame Str 8 - avg damage 34-35
Wargame Str 9 - avg damage 39-40
Wargame Str 10 - avg damage 44-45

Toughness bonus works along a similar pattern - assume TB of 3-4 covers the bulk of humanity (Toughness 3 in the wargame), using TB4 as a good example value. Every increase in Toughness along the wargame scale should be represented by an equivalent +3-5 TB (whether from actual toughness or Unnatural Toughness) in 40kRP. So T4 becomes TB8, T5 becomes TB12, T6 becomes TB16, T7 becomes TB20, and so forth.

Vehicle armour should scale along similar lines as well. In the wargame, damaging an AV10 vehicle is equivalent to wounding a T6 creature (the dice roll needed is the same), so that's a good scale to use. However, as creatures tend to have armour on top of toughness, vehicle armour needs a little boost upwards by comparison. In essence, you get AV10 (wargame) becoming Armour 18, AV11 becoming Armour 24, AV12 becoming Armour 30, AV13 becoming Armour 32 and AV14 becoming Armour 38.

As far as I can tell, those values provide a useful baseline to work from in regards to creature toughness, weapon damage and vehicle armour (infantry armour scaling has always seemed about right).

True, and certain elements of that I had noticed while looking at and playing with the system. I presume the armour creep in Deathwatch was at least partly down to the damage inflation that occurred in that system?

As far as vehicle wounds go: Yes, I realise that without them vehicles are just too fragile. However, I am not convinced that is the best solution (though keeping it consistent with the rules regarding people stops it from getting overcomplicated). As I said one of the issues surrounding the Vehicle Apocrypha is the utterly random nature of damage after penetration. Once you penetrated armour, you rolled on a big d100 table, with various results possible, from some minor niggle to the vehicles exploding spectacularly. This random roll, with no modifiers (as far as I could tell) means that regardless of the power of the weapon involved, or the damage the hit inflicted, the vehicle has the same chance of something quite minor occuring or exploding randomly. This means a single penetrating boltgun shell is just as likely to cause a Rhino to explode as a penetrating lascannon hit. Instead I might have liked a table that was rolled on that was modified by the amount of penetrating damage (giving a bonus on the table for every full 5 points of damage that penetrated, for example). On its basic levels it wouldn't actually be possible to explode (or similar), but you might do things like damage external weapons, motive systems, or hurt crewmembers. As the significance of the penetration increased more devastating things would become possible, up to and including the total destruction of the vehicle, which with particularly powerful hits might just be inevitable.

Also, as I said, the armour values didn't quite seem right. I think I came to the conclusion that the light armours were about right, but that armour didn't increase quickly enough for the heavier vehicles. That, or the damage for heavier weapons needed a look into.

Obviously, it might have been that something like this was considered and rejected as too complicated, but I just find the use of vehicle wounds slightly irritating (though I guess I should find "wounds" silly in general, as they aren't really a realistic way to model damage to people either. Guess I don't mind the abstraction in that case).



#17 Varn

Varn

    Member

  • Members
  • 45 posts

Posted 16 July 2012 - 11:58 AM

Musclewizard said:

Lascannon 5d10+10 Pen: 10 (the Proven(3) is ignored for simplicities sake)
vs.
Leman Russ Battle Tank

SI: 70, Armor 45/35/25
Firing at: Front Armor
100 Tests
To-Hit Chance: 75 (Base Skill 35+single shot (+10)+half action aim(+10)+size: enormous (+20))

Results:
Average Hits to Kill: 19.02
Average Rounds to Kill: 25.64

I've also added support for Righteous Fury against Vehicles (either in simple form were it just tells you every time one was scored or a detailed one that actually lists all the effects). Since this uses a rather large section of the book I've decided to not display RF for this sample log.
 

Sample of the combat log:

 

Target hit - Motive System Hit - Vehicle took 0 damage
Target missed
Target hit - Turret Hit - Vehicle took 0 damage
Target hit - Hull Hit - Vehicle took 3 damage
Target hit - Turret Hit - Vehicle took 2 damage
Target hit - Weapon Hit - Vehicle took 0 damage
Target hit - Hull Hit - Vehicle took 3 damage
Target hit - Motive System Hit - Vehicle took 8 damage
Target hit - Weapon Hit - Vehicle took 0 damage
Target missed
Target hit - Motive System Hit - Vehicle took 9 damage
Target hit - Weapon Hit - Vehicle took 0 damage
Target hit - Motive System Hit - Vehicle took 0 damage
Target hit - Hull Hit - Vehicle took 11 damage
Target missed
Target missed
Target missed
Target hit - Hull Hit - Vehicle took 2 damage
Target hit - Hull Hit - Vehicle took 0 damage
Target hit - Turret Hit - Vehicle took 15 damage
Target missed
Target missed
Target hit - Motive System Hit - Vehicle took 11 damage
Target hit - Motive System Hit - Vehicle took 9 damage
Vehicle Destroyed after 24 rounds and 17 hits.
-----------------------------------------

Target missed
Target hit - Turret Hit - Vehicle took 8 damage
Target hit - Turret Hit - Vehicle took 13 damage
Target hit - Turret Hit - Vehicle took 0 damage
Target hit - Hull Hit - Vehicle took 0 damage
Target missed
Target missed
Target hit - Hull Hit - Vehicle took 0 damage
Target missed
Target hit - Turret Hit - Vehicle took 1 damage
Target hit - Weapon Hit - Vehicle took 0 damage
Target hit - Weapon Hit - Vehicle took 8 damage
Target hit - Hull Hit - Vehicle took 7 damage
Target hit - Motive System Hit - Vehicle took 14 damage
Target missed
Target hit - Motive System Hit - Vehicle took 0 damage
Target hit - Turret Hit - Vehicle took 7 damage
Target hit - Motive System Hit - Vehicle took 1 damage
Target hit - Motive System Hit - Vehicle took 0 damage
Target hit - Hull Hit - Vehicle took 13 damage
Vehicle Destroyed after 20 rounds and 15 hits.
-----------------------------------------

 

So while most of my data isn't necessarily invalidated, you've still made it completely obsolete and made me waste several days of my time.



#18 Morangias

Morangias

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,477 posts

Posted 16 July 2012 - 12:26 PM

Varn said:

 

 

So while most of my data isn't necessarily invalidated, you've still made it completely obsolete and made me waste several days of my time.

I don't mean to bash on your good hard work, but you did approach it a little backwards. When random numbers come into play, you have to run like a bajillion tests to put your results in the vicinity of statistical probability. Especially since the d100 dice in a roll-under system creates a flat probability spread.


There is no truth in flesh, only betrayal.

There is no strenght in flesh, only weakness.
There is no constancy in flesh, only decay.
There is no certainty in flesh but death.


#19 MILLANDSON

MILLANDSON

    Playtester

  • Members
  • 3,356 posts

Posted 16 July 2012 - 12:59 PM

Varn said:

 

So while most of my data isn't necessarily invalidated, you've still made it completely obsolete and made me waste several days of my time.

You're begrudging someone working on the same thing as you? So is no one else meant to work on it other than you, since anyone else working on the statistics makes you waste your time?

Sorry, but you're coming across as angry at someone else for also trying to make the game more balanced, which makes you sound a little childish. Why not send a PM to him and work together?

Plus, as Morangias said, when you want to use random rolls, rather than averages, you need to make hundreds/thousands of rolls to end up with a valid dataset, which is a lot easier when it's automated.


~Yea, Tho I Walk Through The Valley Of The Shadow Of Death, I Shall Fear No Evil~

 

Posts/views/opinions are in no way representative of FFG, and are entirely my own.


#20 Varn

Varn

    Member

  • Members
  • 45 posts

Posted 16 July 2012 - 02:20 PM

I think this might be a bit out of context for most of you then. I'm not so much angry as I am very annoyed and disappointed. Musclewizard and I had spoken briefly on another site about this subject, and at the time he had mentioned he might try to make a program, but it would probably be quite a while before he had anything workable, if he could manage it at all. When I told him what I was doing he made it seem like he was abandoning the project. Now several days later he not only has a working program, but it produces data many times better than what I did, and this is what I'm annoyed about.






© 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