| Register Now | |
| My Points | |
| My Games | |
| Page 3 of 3 (39 messages) | « First page... 2 3 |
KommissarK said:
Well, accurate applies now, and its 3d10+10….
Not too shabby now.
Yup, much better now.
Iron within, Iron without!
"it wouldn't be 40k if no skulls were involved"
-Cifer
A decent fix, but it still doesn't solve the problem of several other anti-tank weapons barely being able to do much to a Russ even to the rear armor.
Without Signature
Imperial vehicles do seem to be far too durable right now. If the system worked like it did in the tabletop (armour penetrated = critical hit) then they'd be fine, but with those substantial buffers of Structural Integrity to keep them going they're absurdly durable. A Leman Russ can take three max damage hits from a Lascannon to its front armour before dropping into the criticals, and that's perfect rolls from the dedicated anti-armour weapon in the game. If it's doing average damage (37, Pen 10) it'll be taking tiny scratches out of that 70 SP bulk. You have the same result with a Melta Gun, supposedly the infrantryman's tank killer, when applied to the rear armour. If the Melta trait kicks in and you do as much damage as possibly you'll take a chunk out of its SP, but not a huge amount, and an average roll won't give the vehicle much trouble at all.
I think a reduction in the SP for some of the bigger vehicles would be in order, as well as a small decrease to armour values. As it is tank killer weapons simply aren't threatening enough.
At least what I'm doing is halving SI on IG vehicles, and then nerfing Ram to deal half the AP in damage instead of full.
I'd personally reduce the SI by about 1/3, and reduce armour by about 10 or so. It'd make Vanquishers and other anti-tank guns better at actually causing damage.
~Yea, Tho I Walk Through The Valley Of The Shadow Of Death, I Shall Fear No Evil~
Rogue Trader, Dark Heresy, Deathwatch, Black Crusade + Only War Playtester
Star Wars: Edge of the Empire Playtester
I do not speak in any official capacity for FFG, all my posts are my own opinion, speculation, etc.
One of Three Founders of Dark Reign
MILLANDSON said:
I'd personally reduce the SI by about 1/3, and reduce armour by about 10 or so. It'd make Vanquishers and other anti-tank guns better at actually causing damage.
I agree. If you look at the venerable vechicle apocrypha, you'll see that rhino had Armour about 21/18. For a rough guidance I would assume tabletop AV 10 as armour 20 (or even less in sentinels, ork trukks, etc), then increase by 5 for every point above 10. eg 11=25, 12=30, 13-35, 14-40.
I think there also should be consequences for crew, for penetrating armour. It's a bit stupid that vechicle can take a pounding, and only on the last 10 hp something actually happens. The table in vechicle apocrypha was too harsh. You would need a new one, perhaphs with entries up to 150+. Then up to 70 you should be more or less ok. More than 70 something starts to break, and fall off. Fires, blown weapons, tires, engine damages, and from about 120 wrecked. For every critical point of damage you get +10 to roll on the table.
Without Signature
As a note, the battle cannon in tabletop is actually an excellent anti-tank weapon. It is more than capable of murdering a Russ from the side or most any other tank from the front. Unless this has changed in 6th edition, battle cannons are considered "ordnance", which means they roll twice for armor penetration and take the higher roll. That puts it at least on par with a lascannon for shooting anything except the front armor of a leman russ or something equally tough. And against a leman russ, it still has a pretty decent chance of scoring a glancing blow frontally and hurting it.
This really only seems to be an issue for Imperial Guard vehicles, since they probably assumed only PCs would use them for who knows why. The rest are mostly fine for SI/armor.
| Page 3 of 3 (39 messages) | « First page... 2 3 |