Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Mishiman

vechicles stats from RoB

Recommended Posts

I would like to know how you handle vechicle's stats in your games? I am especially interested in 2 things: armour points and size because I think that in many cases that 2 stats are wrong. AP of some vechicles is in my opinion too high [for example - even monstrous creatures like Hive Tyrant are without chance to win close combat with Dreadnaught or penetrate Land Raider's hull] and size is also inappropiate. I think that size examples from core rulebook were more realistic then ones from RoB [for example Predator should be massive not enourmous, battle tank that can carry SM crew should not be same size as Revener].

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although the Land Raider is quite tough against even monstrous creatures, the Hive Tyrant could simply use Warp Lance and push to, in all likelihood, destroy it in a single blast. I would think the solution would be to give "monstrous creatures" even more Penetration, since as is it is already extremely unlikely that even astartes armor will make a difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 That is a good point, even in the worst case scenario a scything talon on a Hormogaunt is not the same weapon that is on a Hive Tyrant. Even taking into account the difference in strength a hive tyrants weapons are larger than the Hormagaunt itself.

Extra penetration is a good way to go but how much is required to make it dangerous to vehicles?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RoB exaggerates armour differences.

If you don't mind the math you can use this formula to make things slightly better.
Adjusted AV = ((Vehicle AV - 30) x 0.75) + 30

 

More considerations:
MCs attacks are power weapon equivalents. That means the HT should rather have Pen 6 to 9. But then again his damage is a bit too high for a S6 attack so it evens out unless you are unarmoured.
Against vehicles the following house rule might be interesting - whenever a weapon would roll 2d6 for armour penetration in TT, simply half vehicle armour in the RPG.

 

Alex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Face Eater said:

 That is a good point, even in the worst case scenario a scything talon on a Hormogaunt is not the same weapon that is on a Hive Tyrant. Even taking into account the difference in strength a hive tyrants weapons are larger than the Hormagaunt itself.

Extra penetration is a good way to go but how much is required to make it dangerous to vehicles?

 

 

My personal inclination has been to add +1d10 (or +5; approximately the same in terms of average effect) damage and +3 Pen to the damage of melee bioweapons on Enormous creatures, and +2d10 (or +1d10+5, or simply +10) and +6 Pen to the melee bioweapons of Massive creatures. So, the larger talons on a Tyranid Warrior or Lictor deal 2d10+2+SB R, Pen 5, while those on a Hive Tyrant or Carnifex deal 3d10+2+SB R, Pen 8.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again...

RPGs equals not the tabletop.

Why do I continue to say this?

On the Table top you can't say: "I'm gonna climb to the top of that tank, pry open the hatch and drop a grenade into the crew compartment." All you can do is attack the armor, so the Tabletop abstracts attacks against vehicles. You get to attack the weakest section of armor.

In an RPG, you can do the above example, the GM might make you do several tests to get up there and it may take a turn or two, but **** that would be an epic action wouldn't it. There are more ways to take out a tank than simply walking up and punching it on the side. Hell, Even a hive tyrant would figure out pretty quickly which parts, and ways of attacking a tank are more effective than others.

SO: Tabletop = abstract, not all the rules are perfect direct representations of what is actually happening because the ruleset isn't detailed enough to allow such gameplay. Therefore everything is dumbed down.

RPG = What you want to do you do, RPGs allow you do do the detailed stuff that gets abstracted in tabletop play.

If you don't have the imagination to figure out how a Hive Tyrant could open up a tank with the ruleset it has... well RPGs just aren't for you, stick to the tabletop where you don't need that much imagination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not so much a problem with vehicles and more a problem with the way Tyranid weapons scale. A Dreadnought vs a Carnifex should be an epic duel for the ages. In Deathwatch though the Carnifex might as well surrender as he'll never ever damage the Dread. It's the problem with a Scything Talon doing the same damage whether you're a Hormaguant or a Trygon. Sure, the Strength bonus is different, but the base damage and penetration never changes.

And yes, some vehicles are too tough (like Land Raiders).

BYE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ak-73 and N0-1_H3r3: I thought about something akin to your ideas so I would for sure borrow them and try in game :-)

H.B.M.C: You are right about scaling of nids cc weapons but I think that more guilty is vechicles armour value because even Dreadnaught cannot damage LR [unless I count something wrong]. In the end sad conclusion is that FFG has not properly tested their rules before publishing them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please report results. :)

 

Well, I was using this formula because I thought the Rhino was about right, the Land Raider to good and the Land Speeder even more squishy than in the TT. Bolter with Kraken rounds bringing it down and such.

 

Alex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the most part, I fluff stuff up when it comes to vehicule regardless.

This isn't like other rpgs were a vehicule is something the players have paid points or what not to have... in DW, odds are your vehicule is assigned to you if you need one for the mission.... so I don't have much qualm about wrecking them if it's dramatically appropriate for them to be wrecked or even if the players do something they shouldn't with them - rules be damned.

So really, I'm much more interested in the statistic of enemy vehicules and how those scale up to the player's weapons, than the other way around.

I supposed this would become more of an issue if one of my player was a Dreadnought, but since it's not the case...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ak-73 said:

Please report results. :)

 

Well, I was using this formula because I thought the Rhino was about right, the Land Raider to good and the Land Speeder even more squishy than in the TT. Bolter with Kraken rounds bringing it down and such.

 

Alex

Well, Land Speeder do get shot out of the sky by Bolters in the TT too... not one bolter mind you, but a rapid fire volley from a squad can definitly do the trick.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tarkand said:

For the most part, I fluff stuff up when it comes to vehicule regardless.

This.

DW is an RPG, not a wargame, and seeing as the players are going to be in whatever vehicle the Tyranid is attacking, it would be cruddy to roll a few dice and say 'the vehicle blows up, you all die, because that's what it says here'. Vehicles should blow up when it's dramatically appropriate for them to do so, not to some strict wargame-like formula. I don't really care if a crack grenade "shouldn't" hurt a tank by RAW: when a player has jump-packed onto it, pried off the hatch with a feat of strength and lobbed the grenade into the crew compartment it *should* be destroyed, regardless of what the rules dictate!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Siranui said:

Tarkand said:

 

For the most part, I fluff stuff up when it comes to vehicule regardless.

 

 

This.

DW is an RPG, not a wargame, and seeing as the players are going to be in whatever vehicle the Tyranid is attacking, it would be cruddy to roll a few dice and say 'the vehicle blows up, you all die, because that's what it says here'. Vehicles should blow up when it's dramatically appropriate for them to do so, not to some strict wargame-like formula. I don't really care if a crack grenade "shouldn't" hurt a tank by RAW: when a player has jump-packed onto it, pried off the hatch with a feat of strength and lobbed the grenade into the crew compartment it *should* be destroyed, regardless of what the rules dictate!

Actually, unless its a tank then the characters should be dismounting. There is a reason why soldiers refer to APC's as battlefield taxis. You ride it to the combat zone and the you get off because the **** thing because it is a death trap (spalling, fuel fires, rollovers etc.). You sure as hell don't stay in one when anti-vehicular weaponry is being fired at it (or in this case a large Tyranid is attacking it). I do agree with you that clever, dramatic character actions exploiting weak points on an armored vehicle should be able to disable or destroy said vehicle without the need to resort to overwhelming firepower.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...