Jump to content



Photo

AT-Weapons vs. Vehicles: Automated Testing Results


  • Please log in to reply
47 replies to this topic

#1 Musclewizard

Musclewizard

    Member

  • Members
  • 320 posts

Posted 18 July 2012 - 02:50 AM

I've recently created a tool to automate the testing of Weapons vs. Vehicle Targets in Only War. (with Runtime, without Runtime).

I used this tool to create an extensive table of common Anti-Tank Weaponry and typical Imperial Vehicles.
The Table can be found here.
It's currently Work in Progress but the Front Facing hits are all done. Due to its sice I won't post the table in the forum but once I'm completly done I might pick out some interesting results and talk about them.

Edit: Sorry about double posting. This one's the real thread.



#2 Musclewizard

Musclewizard

    Member

  • Members
  • 320 posts

Posted 18 July 2012 - 04:04 AM

Temporary Verdict: Increasing the Penetration of AT Weapons or decreasing the Armor of Tanks would greatly help to get some reasonable Hits per Kill.
For example the Multi Melta takes on average 9 rounds to destroy a Chimera if fired at the Front Facing. If one would double the penetration by moving closer it only takes 2.8 rounds.
In general it seems like the problem is not so much the weapons themselves (since 3 hits against a Chimera is in my opinion acceptable to destroy it) but the fact that especially the tanks are far to tough.
For example if you were to shoot at a Leman Russ Battle Tanks front Armour with a Missile Launcher and Krak Missiles you'd need roughly 70.000 hits to destroy it. Assuming you hit 3 out of 4 shots and the weapon magically reloads instantly that's 6 1/2 days of continous fire.



#3 Musclewizard

Musclewizard

    Member

  • Members
  • 320 posts

Posted 18 July 2012 - 04:53 AM

Based on what I see in the Data (though this is based on "feeling" the data rather than evaluating it in detail) I feel like the following changes would be easy to implement and make imperial vehicles less indestructible:

-Reduce SI by some amount

-Reduce Rear armour by a miniscule amount

-Reduce Side armour by a small amount

-Reduce Front armour by some amount

This is of course more a general guideline than a solution that can be applied to all imperial vehicles. Especially the Leman Russ Battle Tank and its variants are are far to tough and can stand dozens of hits of all but the most powerful Anti-Tank Weapons and even survive more than a few of those…and that is before "Jink!"

As an example the Leman Russ Demolisher can take about 5 hits of highly accurate Vanquisher Rounds (assuming to have hit with 5 DoS to increase the damage by 2d10) even if they all hit the weakest spot (the rear).



#4 Kasatka

Kasatka

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,005 posts

Posted 18 July 2012 - 05:13 AM

 I've been noticing this trend with vehicles in each subsequent release for 40k. I think that reducing armour isn't necessarily the way to go, but massively reducing the structural integrity of all vehicles is. Armour should be the number that determines how tough a vehicle is, as SI should more be indicative of it's size - for example you could have a large civilian truck or similar that has the same SI as a Leman Russ, but of course isn't going to have much better armour than Carapace or Power armour. Conversely a Sentinel scout walker will have similar armour to a civilian bike, but will have more SI as it is bulkier.


Only the insane have strength enough to prosper.

Only those that prosper may truly judge what is sane.


#5 Musclewizard

Musclewizard

    Member

  • Members
  • 320 posts

Posted 18 July 2012 - 05:17 AM

Kasatka said:

 

 I've been noticing this trend with vehicles in each subsequent release for 40k. I think that reducing armour isn't necessarily the way to go, but massively reducing the structural integrity of all vehicles is. Armour should be the number that determines how tough a vehicle is, as SI should more be indicative of it's size - for example you could have a large civilian truck or similar that has the same SI as a Leman Russ, but of course isn't going to have much better armour than Carapace or Power armour. Conversely a Sentinel scout walker will have similar armour to a civilian bike, but will have more SI as it is bulkier.

 


You may be right about that one. A few points in armour however need to go I think. If you look at the table you'll notice quite a lof of "Can't damage" and really high numbers of HtK (like 50 to 100+). Those are often times cases of powerful weapons simply doing no damage unless max damage or nearly max damage is rolled so the only way of destroying the vehicles is by plinking it to death, a few points of SI at a time.
Even if you were to reduce SI by 50% that would only reduce the time it takes to plink a target to death by, well 50%. Decreasing the armour by only 1 or 2 points however would have the same effect.

Anyway I seriously hope that FFG takes a look at this (or at least at their own testing of vehicles) and gives them at least a little do-over. I can propose changes as much as I want or even create house rules for vehicle stats but I'd much rather have an official (and hopefully more elegant) solution to the whole problem.



#6 Kasatka

Kasatka

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,005 posts

Posted 18 July 2012 - 05:29 AM

Musclewizard said:

Kasatka said:

 

 I've been noticing this trend with vehicles in each subsequent release for 40k. I think that reducing armour isn't necessarily the way to go, but massively reducing the structural integrity of all vehicles is. Armour should be the number that determines how tough a vehicle is, as SI should more be indicative of it's size - for example you could have a large civilian truck or similar that has the same SI as a Leman Russ, but of course isn't going to have much better armour than Carapace or Power armour. Conversely a Sentinel scout walker will have similar armour to a civilian bike, but will have more SI as it is bulkier.

 


You may be right about that one. A few points in armour however need to go I think. If you look at the table you'll notice quite a lof of "Can't damage" and really high numbers of HtK (like 50 to 100+). Those are often times cases of powerful weapons simply doing no damage unless max damage or nearly max damage is rolled so the only way of destroying the vehicles is by plinking it to death, a few points of SI at a time.
Even if you were to reduce SI by 50% that would only reduce the time it takes to plink a target to death by, well 50%. Decreasing the armour by only 1 or 2 points however would have the same effect.

Anyway I seriously hope that FFG takes a look at this (or at least at their own testing of vehicles) and gives them at least a little do-over. I can propose changes as much as I want or even create house rules for vehicle stats but I'd much rather have an official (and hopefully more elegant) solution to the whole problem.

Aye, even a 10% reduction in LR and variant Armour ratings would be sufficient, in addition to (for arguments sake) a universal -50% SI. As per your table and the 'Can't damage' results, i'm fine with multilasers not hurting vehicles (beyond the open topped sentinels) and Baneblades being immune to anything but the largest ordnance and anti-take explosives.


Only the insane have strength enough to prosper.

Only those that prosper may truly judge what is sane.


#7 Musclewizard

Musclewizard

    Member

  • Members
  • 320 posts

Posted 18 July 2012 - 05:37 AM

Kasatka said:

 

Aye, even a 10% reduction in LR and variant Armour ratings would be sufficient, in addition to (for arguments sake) a universal -50% SI.


That sounds reasonable. I don't really want to get to far into actual changes (especially specific numbers) right now since I'm really rooting for an official solution to this and testing all this was already a lot of work that I don't really want to repeat more than once (either for an official change or, should the be none until release for some houserule solution).

 



#8 Magnus Grendel

Magnus Grendel

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,204 posts

Posted 18 July 2012 - 08:08 AM

One other question - should the '0-is-critical' stay in for vehicles?

On the one hand, no amount of plinking with las-fire should take out a tank, but on the other, a heavy bolter shell or autocannon slug should still be able to mess up a track or gun barrel, even if it can't go through the main armour belt…



#9 KommissarK

KommissarK

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,499 posts

Posted 18 July 2012 - 08:10 AM

Magnus Grendel said:

One other question - should the '0-is-critical' stay in for vehicles?

On the one hand, no amount of plinking with las-fire should take out a tank, but on the other, a heavy bolter shell or autocannon slug should still be able to mess up a track or gun barrel, even if it can't go through the main armour belt…

Actually, I did a reread on this last night, as far as I can tell, vehicles actually don't take one point of damage if a 10 is rolled on the attack, but still failed to surpass armour.

Could be wrong though.



#10 Kiton

Kiton

    Member

  • Members
  • 370 posts

Posted 18 July 2012 - 08:20 AM

no, that's correct.

Righteous Fury as a whole got a bit of a kneecapping in the damage department. Against creatures, you deal one point of damage if you would not have otherwise, but if even one damage got through from your actual result, you instead cause a 1d5 non-stacking mini-crit. They're nice, they can be quite handy, but its a minor debilitation if you're lucky, rather than "its dead that much faster".

 

Against vehicles, IF, and only IF, you get through the armor to deal integrity damage, and you roll a ten, then you're also causing one of those 1d5 mini-crits to a part of it. This can be extremely lethal to skimmers, fliers and the such, but is otherwise rather unremarkable.



#11 Musclewizard

Musclewizard

    Member

  • Members
  • 320 posts

Posted 18 July 2012 - 08:23 AM

It's actually quite important that RF does NOT deal at least 1 point of damage to vehicles
If it would 2400 Guardsman coulld destroy a Baneblade in 6 seconds.
2400 Guards with BS 35, half action aim and single shot gives effective BS of 55. So of 2400 Guardsman ~1200 hit. Out of 1200 Guardsman one in 10 rolls a 10 -> 120 Damage to the Baneblade.



#12 JuankiMan

JuankiMan

    Member

  • Members
  • 256 posts

Posted 18 July 2012 - 09:01 AM

 By the way, what armor facing are you targeting with these calculations? Because before vehicles got massively nerfed in 6th ed, a Leman Russ could easily take more than a dozen krak missiles to its front armour without going down. If a squad tackles a tank without flanking it they're doing something very wrong.

Also, people always seem to forget to add size bonuses in their to-hit calculations. Firing at an Enormous vehicle gives a +30 to hit, which makes the Vanquisher extremely deadly. 



#13 Kiton

Kiton

    Member

  • Members
  • 370 posts

Posted 18 July 2012 - 09:08 AM

then again, maybe that many should.

2400 guardsmen, at BS 35, half-action aim, normal range, using semi-auto [three shot burst]:

55% of them miss

20% of them strike once:  480 hits

20% of them strike twice: 960 hits

5% of them strike thrice: 360 hits

 

A total of 1800 directed energy pulses strike the vehicle over six seconds. Even dispersed across the armor, it greatly interferes with energy distribution due to multiple heating zones. In a single volley, the super-heavy vehicle has suffered almost two thousand hits.

Perhaps it wouldn't be out of line to offer that one point of damage IF the RF result would at least reach half the damn thing's Armor rating?

 

Wouldn't help those guardsmen against the baneblade, but the back-end of a leman russ? That's gotta at least cause some bloody heating.



#14 Musclewizard

Musclewizard

    Member

  • Members
  • 320 posts

Posted 18 July 2012 - 09:08 AM

JuankiMan said:

 

 By the way, what armor facing are you targeting with these calculations? Because before vehicles got massively nerfed in 6th ed, a Leman Russ could easily take more than a dozen krak missiles to its front armour without going down. If a squad tackles a tank without flanking it they're doing something very wrong.

Also, people always seem to forget to add size bonuses in their to-hit calculations. Firing at an Enormous vehicle gives a +30 to hit, which makes the Vanquisher extremely deadly. 

 


There's 3 categories at the bottom. So I actually did the calculations for all 3 facings. I also ignored size and other to-hit bonuses in my calculation (the google docs one I mean) because I assumed 100% to-hit chance. After all I was interested in the Hits per Kill not the Rounds per Kill since the latter is modified by firing rate, degrees of sucess, dodging ("Jink!"), size, ammo capacitity and reload speed. Better to recude variables I think.
If you're talking about the Guardsman example you are of course correct but the point still stands. If you allow RF to deal always at least one point in damage every target could be destroyed if you apply enough shots.

@Kiton

Adding some special clause under what condition an RF hit should still deal one point of damage would be cluncky while serving little purpose of actually benefiting the game. Wether or not a large number of weak attacks should be able to damage a strong target (they shouldn't just replace lasguns with stones and the result would be the same) is such an edge case that it doesn't need a specific clause to handle it.

 



#15 Kiton

Kiton

    Member

  • Members
  • 370 posts

Posted 18 July 2012 - 09:18 AM

Accurate is still limited to +2d10 which cannot initiate RF. Beyond maximizing the individual hit's dice, it does not change the minimum roll of 20 on those 5d10+10 Pen 16 hits required to cause a single point of structural integrity against the front of a Russ. With the average roll being 27.5, and 19 or less doing nothing, the low damage and high number of shots required by a vanquisher cannon were already taking full-accuracy hits into account.

 

Its being generous towards the weapon, but ignoring straight hits, misses and +1d10s outright assuming all damage checks are on the full 5d10+10 is still leaving the thing quite short of 'tank destroyer'.



#16 trentmorten

trentmorten

    Member

  • Members
  • 96 posts

Posted 19 July 2012 - 01:07 AM

I'm in favour of RF damaging tanks and any other vehicles, but also in favour of AT weapons being damaging to most tanks. We've added +2d10 to most of them in my game (leftover from DH plasma weapons being sucky) but i realise this might not suit all. Pherhaps the devastating weapon trait could reduce the armor by X points per degree of devastating, or you could give them a trait that doubled their damage against any target with a TB/ARMOR value above a certain amount, i.e. space marines, carnifexs and Vechiles. this would represent the rather gross overpenetration of AT weapons against a normal trooper.



#17 Veroldindir

Veroldindir

    Member

  • Members
  • 53 posts

Posted 19 July 2012 - 05:13 PM

I think the problem is really 2 fold.

First and the most important issue, the damages for weapons are all over the place - not really indicative of TT rules, but with TT rules aside they are still quite wierd. For example, an Autocannon deals the SAME damage as a KRAK MISSILE, with only 2 points less in PEN. So basically you have a rapid firing krak missile - the 2 point PEN reduction is negligent. We don't really have a lot of 4d10+X damage weapons, then it suddenly jumps to 5d10+10 with the lascannon. You really don't have a lot of damaging weapons. Almost all weapons are within or under 30 damage range. If you are in close combat you're basically screwed against any tank unless you have demo charges or melta bombs, even if you are a space marine. Where as the TT game as well as the Lore, you have marines cracking open tanks with power fists and chainfists - can't really do that in any of the 40k games.

Secondly, due to the damage for weapons being all over the place, it's really difficult to narrow down a good set of armor and structural integrity to balance out the damage. For the way we play at our group, we lowered the SI to reflect the TT versions. Basically SI is equal to ever 10-15 per hull point on the TT game (6th edition). Armor we used a formula that was posted on the Deathwatch forum about a year back, where 15-20 armor is equal to 10 in TT conversion, 21-25 is about 11 in TT, 26-30 is about 12 in TT, 31-35 is about 13 in TT, and 36-40 is about 14 in TT version. With +/-5 modifier for special vehicles.

The problem really stems from when Black Industries was making the game. Though granted we can all appreciate that they did get the ball rolling on the 40k rpg game with Dark Heresy, the rules they created did not reflect what it would be like with vehicles. It was built around person to person combat, and the damage for the weapons are evident. The only thing to by-pass vehicular armor with weapons is by using brute force (i.e. damage), NOT PEN, because the pen are already set to reflect the person to person combat. I suppose going full circle with this, due to damaging vehicles requiring brute force, it is reflective of the TT game, since you roll d6+str of weapon to overcome the armor, the AP of the weapon has no bearing, which seems to be the case for most listed weapons - even anti tank ones. The only weapons I've ever seen high double digit pen are titan class weapons listed in Rites of Battle for Deathwatch. The Turbo Laser Destructor has essentially pen 20 IIRC (which if there's a pattern, it's double that of lascannon pen, which again, a turbo laser destructor is essentially a huge lascannon).

I don't think there's a quick and easy fix unless you houserule it. I almost never pay any attention to the armor, SI, or even damage of some of these weapons except to use them as a reference in most cases. Most things I do are houseruled.



#18 Kiton

Kiton

    Member

  • Members
  • 370 posts

Posted 19 July 2012 - 06:58 PM

Maybe damage is just too on/off.

What if, instead, the basic damage mechanic [this is a big change, but if its RIGHT, then bloody hells, GO FOR IT] happened to add, say, the weapon's DICE to Damage and Penetration for every DoS on the hit. his occurs up to twice, or once if firing in Semi or Fully automatic modes, and it takes two dice of accurate to count as one real die of damage for this mechanic. Obviously since tearing involves dropping a die, sorry, it don't help here.

 

So a Lasgun hitting by at least 2 DoS deals 1d10+5 Pen 2 as a base. Or could do up to three hits of 1d10+4 Pen 1.

A Long-Las could do, with a full accuracy bonus, 3d10+7 Pen 5. That's actually quite brutal [though two of those d10s do not generate RF]

A Vanquisher Round could be dishing out an additional +8/+8 on a max accuracy shot: Its base is three dice, after all. 5d10+18 Pen 24? I hear we'd been having problems with heavy frontal armor…

A Plasma weapon gets a special little kick-up, by increasing its bonuses thanks to the extra die in Maximal.

A Las Cannon… well that just kinda brutalizes crap now. I'd recommend lowering it by 1d10 if this change were to be done. A solid hit would thus result in 4d10+18 Pen 18

Melta Weapons would stay brutal. Just, slightly more so.

 

Worst Case scenario, if you want to help keep Las and SP competitive [since Rares of those two tend to be nowhere near as capable as even a Scarce of other types save low-tech], the basics and pistols could just add a +1/+1 to the final total whenever it gets boosted. Not quite like an extra die, but decent.

 

 

Tons of ways of doing things, really… But somehow I'm thinking that offshoots of the lightning claw rules might be a good middle-ground to "well we're going to have to make this melta"



#19 borithan

borithan

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,183 posts

Posted 20 July 2012 - 01:01 AM

Veroldindir said:

I think the problem is really 2 fold.

First and the most important issue, the damages for weapons are all over the place - not really indicative of TT rules, but with TT rules aside they are still quite wierd. For example, an Autocannon deals the SAME damage as a KRAK MISSILE, with only 2 points less in PEN. So basically you have a rapid firing krak missile - the 2 point PEN reduction is negligent. We don't really have a lot of 4d10+X damage weapons, then it suddenly jumps to 5d10+10 with the lascannon. You really don't have a lot of damaging weapons. Almost all weapons are within or under 30 damage range. If you are in close combat you're basically screwed against any tank unless you have demo charges or melta bombs, even if you are a space marine. Where as the TT game as well as the Lore, you have marines cracking open tanks with power fists and chainfists - can't really do that in any of the 40k games.

The problem really stems from when Black Industries was making the game. Though granted we can all appreciate that they did get the ball rolling on the 40k rpg game with Dark Heresy, the rules they created did not reflect what it would be like with vehicles. It was built around person to person combat, and the damage for the weapons are evident. The only thing to by-pass vehicular armor with weapons is by using brute force (i.e. damage), NOT PEN, because the pen are already set to reflect the person to person combat. I suppose going full circle with this, due to damaging vehicles requiring brute force, it is reflective of the TT game, since you roll d6+str of weapon to overcome the armor, the AP of the weapon has no bearing, which seems to be the case for most listed weapons - even anti tank ones. The only weapons I've ever seen high double digit pen are titan class weapons listed in Rites of Battle for Deathwatch. The Turbo Laser Destructor has essentially pen 20 IIRC (which if there's a pattern, it's double that of lascannon pen, which again, a turbo laser destructor is essentially a huge lascannon).

I agree the damage of weapons is a bit iffy. Now, in some ways it is quite realistic that different types of weapons of a similar type have different damages, but it doesn't work if your used to the table top game, where a plasma pistol, rifle and cannon are all Strength 7, giving them the same chance of killing vehicles (though of course this is only the case since 3rd edition).

I have to say, I disagree on PEN. PEN is worse for vehicles than for people, as their entire damage reduction is in armour. Past PEN 8 (though now 10+ in Deathwatch) it really doesn't do much in individual combat. Meltaguns start at PEN 12, and of course double at short range. You are right that it doesn't reflect the tabletop, as AP doesn't really do anything (except on penetrating hits), but it certainly matters for vehicles. It might even be worth lowering the damage on some weapons, while upping the PEN.



#20 Musclewizard

Musclewizard

    Member

  • Members
  • 320 posts

Posted 20 July 2012 - 01:27 AM

borithan said:


I agree the damage of weapons is a bit iffy. Now, in some ways it is quite realistic that different types of weapons of a similar type have different damages, but it doesn't work if your used to the table top game, where a plasma pistol, rifle and cannon are all Strength 7, giving them the same chance of killing vehicles (though of course this is only the case since 3rd edition).

 

I have to say, I disagree on PEN. PEN is worse for vehicles than for people, as their entire damage reduction is in armour. Past PEN 8 (though now 10+ in Deathwatch) it really doesn't do much in individual combat. Meltaguns start at PEN 12, and of course double at short range. You are right that it doesn't reflect the tabletop, as AP doesn't really do anything (except on penetrating hits), but it certainly matters for vehicles. It might even be worth lowering the damage on some weapons, while upping the PEN.


I agree. Anti-Tank Weapons should have reaaally high pen. Especially the type that is supposed to be only used against single targets instead of groups (like the Lascannon or the Vanquisher as opposed to the Battle Cannon with defaul ammunition). When an AT Weapon hits a target it will never matter if the target has Armour 5 oder 6 since reasonable AT weapons should start at Pen 10+.






© 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