Tactical Command
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/

Proposed Hull points
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=159&t=32634		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  SquatWarlord [ Fri Sep 08, 2017 5:12 am ]
Post subject:  Proposed Hull points
Vehicles use structure points in 40k 7th and earlier.
Now in 8th they use wounds.

The main reason they did this was to prevent one shot one kill rhinos and other transports. It made them kind of useless.

So for every structure point = 1 hit this based exactly from Apocalypse rules.
Warlord would have 9
Reaver 6
warhound 3
Baneblade 3
Landraider 2
rhino 2
If you use this then critical hit tables should be used.
Also some heavy weapons like volcano cannons would do 2 structure points a hit .(optional)
This would also get rid of location scatter dice for shooting at titans

What do you think?
Author:  MagnusIlluminus [ Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:38 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Proposed Hull points
NetEpic already has a system for Wounds. The vast majority of models & stands are considered to have 1 Wound, IE they can take 1 hit before being destroyed. I feel that this should not change. If it did, then each Infantry stand would have to have a number of wounds equal to the number of individual soldiers on each base. This would heavily over-complicate the game. Thus at the least, what you proposed above should be halved.

I personally like the hit location tables just as they are. Still, there have been proposals in the past much like this, so it could be possible that an entry in the Optional Rules document (if it ever gets made) could be made for this system. I cannot see the default rules changing though.

It would be interesting to see opinions from other people though. Matttman, primarch, etc.
Author:  Mattman [ Wed Sep 13, 2017 11:57 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Proposed Hull points
This was something that was discussed a few years back to try and give super heavies a bit more longevity as they can be a little weak at the moment. I even started drafting up some ideas of putting structure points on titan hit locations, again to try and avoid 1 shotting locations.
I wouldn't do this for anything smaller than a super heavy as the book keeping of tracking damage on all vehicles would become a nightmare.
Author:  primarch [ Thu Sep 14, 2017 12:53 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Proposed Hull points
Hi!

I've always preferred "wounds" (damage rating/structure points, etc). Originally 40k in the rogue trader days was like this. Things like vehicles were very durable under such a system and I think the current 40k has gone back to that.

For epic, SM1 introduced "damage rating" which gave units like the Capitol Imperialis much durability. I thought the hit location template was a downgrade compared to that system.

As an alternate system I would favor it, but I can attest that the "common" net epic player or those whom prefer 2nd edition find the hit location template "just fine".

Primarch
Author:  SquatWarlord [ Thu Sep 14, 2017 2:14 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Proposed Hull points
Mattman wrote:
This was something that was discussed a few years back to try and give super heavies a bit more longevity as they can be a little weak at the moment. I even started drafting up some ideas of putting structure points on titan hit locations, again to try and avoid 1 shotting locations.
I wouldn't do this for anything smaller than a super heavy as the book keeping of tracking damage on all vehicles would become a nightmare.



Very easy to track just use a bit of cotton as a smoke marker on a model. It also looks good.

A chart could go something like this
1-4 1 damage /knocked out (if last hull point)
5-6 Chain reaction 1 damage & roll again/explodes( if last hull point)

This means you can still kill a super heavy by rolling 5-6 twice with one shot.
Author:  SquatWarlord [ Thu Sep 14, 2017 2:41 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Proposed Hull points
MagnusIlluminus wrote:
NetEpic already has a system for Wounds. The vast majority of models & stands are considered to have 1 Wound, IE they can take 1 hit before being destroyed. I feel that this should not change. If it did, then each Infantry stand would have to have a number of wounds equal to the number of individual soldiers on each base. one base has 5 wounds for normal guys. Up to 10 wounds = 1 hull This would heavily over-complicate the game. Thus at the least, what you proposed above should be halved. These numbers are right on 10 wounds per hull point a warlord has 70 wounds in 40k
Hull points would only be used for vehicles and titans.
I personally like the hit location tables just as they are. Still, there have been proposals in the past much like this, so it could be possible that an entry in the Optional Rules document (if it ever gets made) could be made for this system. I cannot see the default rules changing though. Default rules can be slower

It would be interesting to see opinions from other people though. Matttman, primarch, etc.


Current 8th edition 40k wounds for
Warhound = 35
Reaver = 60
Warlord Titan = 70 wounds ( and you are worried about tracking 7!!)
Knight paladin =24
Landraiders = 16
Predator = 11
Leman Russ =12
Shadowsword = 26
All I did was divide by 10 to get hull points and round up.

If you use this style then we can start doing fun stuff like making volcano cannons work properly.
Warlord Belicosa volcano cannon Range 180cm Save - 5 Damage 1-3 hull points
Reaver volcano cannon Range 180 Save -4 Damage 1-3 hull points
Shadowsword volcano cannon Range 120 Save -4 Damage 1-2 hull points

I would not like volcano cannons hitting on a 3+ with these ranges it is far better to use BS based hit chances.

If you don't like Battle tanks (Leman Russ) having 2 hull points then only super heavy's and knights will have 2
Volcano cannons will do 1-2 damage
You can alter it to your needs
Author:  MagnusIlluminus [ Sat Sep 23, 2017 6:04 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Proposed Hull points
STOP ADDING WORDS THAT I DID NOT SAY!!! That is very ruder and I will not tolerate it. I just cannot even read your posts anymore.
Author:  SquatWarlord [ Sat Sep 23, 2017 9:58 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Proposed Hull points
Why so angry? I don't get it
All I was doing was addressing your points.
The word in red are my points responding to yours.
Maybe it is in a different style than you are used to I have no idea why you posted such a response .
You clearly missinterpreted this post.

If you think I'm rude consider this.
For the past year the amount of writing I do at work is less than my current posts on these boards.

I have a small family wholesale business I crunch numbers all day in my head and I don't need to write things to others.
So the end result is that I don't know how to write well due to the lack of practice and when I actually have time to post something. (I work 6 days a week sometimes 7)
I will be lazy and will just blurt out points sometimes with poor structure and cohesion.
So my "rudness" is my style of efficiency/lazyness/bluntness call it what you will when I post something.

Ps I could have used this time to update 10 tanks :-\
Cheers
Author:  Doomkitten [ Mon Sep 25, 2017 12:41 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Proposed Hull points
Just don't write stuff inside quote tags, it's really not difficult. As it is, it's just harder to follow clearly *AND* you make it harder on yourself with all the horrible colour tags.

Just use quote tags, please!

Also, I'll be honest, I really don't like how you argue two dice rolls to hit is so awful the whole to-hit mechanic has to change, but then add points of complexity to damage rolls which wind up being more than a mere two dice rolls to hit. It all just sounds a bit like you want to play 40k but with epic minis.
Author:  SquatWarlord [ Mon Sep 25, 2017 2:19 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Proposed Hull points
Doomkitten wrote:
Just don't write stuff inside quote tags, it's really not difficult. As it is, it's just harder to follow clearly *AND* you make it harder on yourself with all the horrible colour tags.

Just use quote tags, please!

Also, I'll be honest, I really don't like how you argue two dice rolls to hit is so awful the whole to-hit mechanic has to change, but then add points of complexity to damage rolls which wind up being more than a mere two dice rolls to hit. It all just sounds a bit like you want to play 40k but with epic minis.


As far as writing inside quote tags who knows that everyone gets pissed off when you do it here?

I was putting different ideas out there with damage charts and more than one hull for regular tanks.
Sometimes I post too much info then after I think about it some more I go and change it.

So far you are the only one who has expressed any feeling about it good or bad with reasons.
I realized myself that adding that level of complexity isn't a good thing.
I will use the current system for damage.
One hit for everything.
But I still think superheavies should get 2 .

It's one roll to hit and one roll to save.
You get a second save for cover depending on the type.
I will go update my formulas and remove the extra.
I have been busy typing out spacemarine stats under Mattman's post please go have a look and give some feedback.
Cheers
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/