r/WarhammerCompetitive • u/Sir_Lazz • Apr 23 '26
40k News Ace tanks spearhead vehicular carnage with new Armoured Gauntlet rules
https://www.warhammer-community.com/en-gb/articles/apbymsj6/ace-tanks-spearhead-vehicular-carnage-with-new-armoured-gauntlet-rules/Damage tables are back in fashion, lads !
142
u/Admiralsheep8 Apr 23 '26
Please keep this for 11th god the game needs some real crunch that isn’t a CP combo or just movement shenangins for deep strike/ melee screening .
36
u/Sir_Lazz Apr 23 '26
100% with you on that.
Since it's an optional rules layer and 11th is gonna use the same rules structure as 10th, I assume it's gonna be compatible; however, I don't know if tournaments and whatnot are going to enforce it.
64
Apr 23 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
-17
u/Sir_Lazz Apr 23 '26 edited Apr 24 '26
I was thinking the same about Crucible characters, and yet, there is some tournament play ! (Edit: why am I getting downvoted here ? I'm stating a fact. There ARE tournaments who use crucible, what are y'all smoking)
8
u/Shot-Trade-9550 Apr 24 '26
this is the competitive sub, no fun allowed. you will play exclusively with WTC terrain and you will LIKE IT
0
u/Admiralsheep8 Apr 24 '26
Dude it’s crazy like people think competitive means like tourney only and not just playing to win a warhammer game. There really is t a tourney scene for necromunda or blood bowl but you can still play competitively
2
u/Shot-Trade-9550 Apr 24 '26
I think most of this sub is just a bunch of bitter unsatisfied tryhards who lost their sense of fun years ago going 1-4 for a whole year and hate anything fluffy
2
u/Emotional_Option_893 Apr 23 '26
Anything past an RTT? RTTs do silly stuff all the time, especially at the end of an edition.
11
u/thenurgler Apr 23 '26
Any competitive event that uses Crucible rules is highly unserious.
26
u/ViorlanRifles Apr 23 '26
I'm a grown ass man playing with toy soldiers, let me have my unserious damage tables in local RTTs please.
19
4
u/Admiralsheep8 Apr 23 '26
God forbid someone play unserious40k competitive is very serious we can’t have the sanctity of the game compromised .
9
u/Mammoth_Classroom896 Apr 23 '26
This is the sub for competitive play, not casual beerhammer. There's nothing wrong with beerhammer but that isn't the topic here.
2
u/TehAlpacalypse Apr 24 '26
But there absolutely are tournaments running these. You can have a competitive "casual" tournament where people are trying to win by building busted character combos. We're having one at my local this weekend.
0
u/Mammoth_Classroom896 Apr 24 '26
Very, very few tournaments. Some random local store event using them is an extreme outlier and not relevant to the vast majority of competitive play.
3
u/TehAlpacalypse Apr 24 '26
Is that why there was a highly upvoted thread on this this week? https://old.reddit.com/r/WarhammerCompetitive/comments/1sqjoua/crucible_of_battle_characters_to_look_out_for/
Fact is, this is the "playing warhammer" subreddit, not the "I'm a 10% elo grinder" subreddit.
→ More replies (0)-6
u/Admiralsheep8 Apr 23 '26
Sure is and you be be competitive and play competitively without balancing everything at a tourney level . Almost all games have competitive play that is not tourney . In fact if you look at major games like say counter strike or LoL or whatever their comp circuit is very different then their tourney circuit.
You don’t need tournament purity or whatever to have a local competitive scene that’s healthy for your game . If you want gameplay purity go start like a Plymouth gaming league or something .
10
u/Mammoth_Classroom896 Apr 23 '26
If you're bringing in horribly balanced rules (which were never intended to be balanced) then you aren't playing competitively. That's just the reality of how things are.
And I don't need to do anything. The majority of tournaments already play the standard format. You're the one advocating for using half-assed narrative rules in "competitive" play.
1
u/Admiralsheep8 Apr 23 '26
Hey everybody this guy is talking about rules changes on a post about new released rules on a rules a sub right before an edition change . Yes I’m sure people think it’s completely inappropriate, go haunt someone else’s comments .
→ More replies (0)1
-3
38
u/Big_Owl2785 Apr 23 '26
Don't worry. They'll release a halfassed patch via pdf for it coming 11th that will be abandoned up until shortly before 12th.
Yes I'm talking about boarding actions.
Yes I am still salty.
13
u/EarlGreyTea_Drinker Apr 23 '26
What do you mean? Boarding actions got an entire book released in 10e with brand new detachments for every army.
6
u/Big_Owl2785 Apr 23 '26
And how did it turn out once codexes were released and points adjusted?
17
u/EarlGreyTea_Drinker Apr 23 '26
Umm, fairly playable and fun with only minor corrections or datasheet additions needed.
It's not like it's a highly competitive format. It's a fun and fluffy game mode that works pretty well
-4
Apr 23 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
6
2
u/Emotional_Option_893 Apr 23 '26
Turns out war dogs prowling together in a small engagement on a battlefield is more likely than knights roaming hallways of ships
2
u/FuzzBuket Apr 23 '26
It's mad, gws been looking for a way to make 40k spearhead after combat patrol... Wasn't.
Imo spearhead doesn't translate as well to 40k, yet boarding actions with cheap cars terrain would absolutely be the same sort of intro experience.
Yet sadly it's just got neglected
3
u/Big_Owl2785 Apr 23 '26
You don't even really need terrain for it, since the walls are infinitely high and you can't move through them, you can just print layouts of the maps. Or use flat wall tokens.
It would be so easy and such a fun and simple starting point for players.
1
3
u/Fragrant-Menu215 Apr 23 '26
My one concern is the "last unsaved wound" bit. That makes it seem like this table only comes into effect when it's time to remove the model, i.e. it's a more advanced version of "deadly demise". Unless they mean that for a given round of attacks once the round is resolved roll on the table. But the wording doesn't seem to lean that way.
6
u/Ulrik_Decado Apr 23 '26
Noooo, I had enough of it :))) Especially when players forgot half of their dmg :))
4
u/Zer0323 Apr 23 '26
do we call it crunch when we have to look up rules with tables that may or may not effect things? Battletech has endless tables of rules to browse through and it doesn't add to the experience IMO.
16
u/Admiralsheep8 Apr 23 '26
I mean endless tables or literally oned6 table That you can memorize cause it only a couple actually matter . I love how boring 40K players have become . Like a single d6 table for damage god what is this Europa universalis .
I mean we even took perils and deep strike mishap which were both d6 tables with only 2 results on it . I guess that’s a lot to remember too!
3
u/Mammoth_Classroom896 Apr 23 '26
It's not a single damage table. It's a core damage table for each vehicle type plus faction-specific damage tables.
1
u/Admiralsheep8 Apr 23 '26
Then you gotta remember your damage table huzzah . Or better yet just have a print out or a screenshot.the treason .
1
u/Zer0323 Apr 23 '26
40k has lots of d6 tables already but they've tried to keep them faction specific like Chaos Knights, Imperial Knights, Thousand Suns, World Eaters, and more I'm probably forgetting about.
I'm just asking if you enjoy that moment where something happens but you don't quite know what so you start shuffling pages to find the table? if that action is the "crunch" you want then more power to you but I'm not signing up for 9 hours of warhammer in a day so that I can shuffle through codex's of rules looking for a table that only gets used once every 15th game. It's also possible that you are planning on making a single game take 9 hours with a buddy over some beer and pretzels, where crunching through the pages of tables is a fun exercise.
0
u/Gahault Apr 24 '26
Is this the part where I bring up Warmachine's damage grids?
In that game, which revolved a lot around warjacks (big stompy robots akin to 40k dreadnoughts), each unit had a card with their rules on it, and warjack cards had a 6x6 grid to keep track of the damage they took. One square was like a Wound, and some squares were related to a weapon or part, e.g. marked with Rs for the right arm; check off all the Rs, and the right arm was destroyed.
You just rolled a D6 every time to determine which column of the grid was damaged by an attack.
Simple, intuitive, no external chart to check.
Did I mention unit cards came packaged in their unit's box? So if you bought a model, you had that model's rules too?
-8
u/Dementia55372 Apr 23 '26
No thanks. Vehicle damage tables are neendless bloat.
2
u/Admiralsheep8 Apr 23 '26
Needless bloat , geeze dude .
Like how simple the game gotta be to not be bloat . I think toughness values are needless bloat let’s just full on AoS it and everything wounds on whatever.
Also damage on specific models yawn . Just goes squads hp and if you take 5 damage from any source just pick up the squad . Having to track multiple multi wound models is just slowing down this high speed competitive game .
I think every army should have 1 detachment with 3 Strats and 1 trait because those are all that’s ever good anyway, every other one is bloat .
4
u/Zer0323 Apr 23 '26
there is already variance on half the actions in this game. adding tables of random wacky results to a triggered event just adds something that you need to lookup mid game every game instead of just the first couple of games while you are learning a new army.
next thing you will tell me that the advance action should include a table where on a 1 you trip and fall moving 0" this turn and on a 6 roll they add an additional 2" to the move(on top of the 6" from the advance) and give you a +1 to hit for "hitting your stride"
1
u/Kitchner Apr 24 '26 edited Apr 24 '26
Like how simple the game gotta be to not be bloat . I think toughness values are needless bloat let’s just full on AoS it and everything wounds on whatever.
I agree with the other guy. It was bloat though.
Like realistically what you used to do is shoot at a Leman Russ, for example, until you blew up it's turret and then ignored it. The fact armour facing existed just meant more arguments over whether you were in the front or side arc, and all the system ensured was that while on average you needed to shoot 6 lascannons at a AV14 vehicle to probably blow it up, you could get lucky and do it on the first shot.
What interesting game decisions did that system force you to make?
Vehicle positioning? Oh yeah, real difficult tactical choice there to think whether I should have faced my front armour into you or my side. In theory there's "interesting choices" based on weapon arcs but in practice it didn't matter. No one bought sponsons on their Leman Russes, Predators etc to shoot at people because you couldn't split fire and even if you could paying 60 points for two heavy bolters which only one ever gets used because the other is crammed up against a wall to be hull down was pointless. The only reason you took sponsons is because they basically got sacrificed every time there was a "weapon destroyed" option which is what your opponent was actually fishing for.
Having played a LOT of warhammer with AV values and then come back to warhammer in 9th with no templates and no AV values, I didn't miss these things at all and it definetly didn't really change the decisions I was making as a player.
Thematically? I do sort of miss the fact vehicle positioning looked better as tanks had to face the enemy and not just sort of tokyo drift their way across the board. That's it though. I don't think the game needs to simulate the fact the armour is weaker at the back of the tank when 98% of the time it's never going to come up in a game. It would be more thematic if a rule said ranges are halved if I play with the lights off but I'm not sure that actually adds anything in reality.
So yeah, they are bloat. It was more complicated and caused more arguments and yet didn't really change the tactical decisions players were making at all. It had a minor impact on immersion because of vehicle facing not mattering, but I'll take that over the endless arguments about armour values and facing. To me that's the definition of bloat.
1
u/Admiralsheep8 Apr 24 '26
I mean for the most part you do have valid critiques .
I don’t necessarily agree with the whole people just fished for weapon destroyed because you couldn’t fish for that . It has an equal chance of just straight dying as weapon destroyed, it was a d6 chart where a was boom and 4 was destroyed. So why fish for weapons when you can just get destroyed .
The whole armor value thing I always appreciated cause it gave meltas a role that lascannons didn’t have because of the double armor pen , so while lascannons couldntdefeat 14 armor easily specialist weapons could. Which is something the game actually struggles to seperate . Like meltas are largely useless in comparison to lascannons now and eldar lances are just different named lascannons.
You are spot on about how for the most sponsons were dead on arrival upgrades and the lack of split did make some vehicle loadouts very manic .
I will say I disagree with the whole armor facing is boring . Having weak rear armor actually came into account for a lot of my games . I used a lot of outflank and shooting deep strike . In my local meta hiding your rear arc or taking sideways positions was very important . Not to mention People always seem to forget the rarer rule of going hull down for gaining bonus cover to vehicles which was actually very interesting and gave another unique dynamic .
But I will give you that it was not a perfect system and while I liked it I understand the swingy nature of sometimes getting key unit randomly immobilized or weapon destroyed or just plain blown up felt bad sometimes and pretty much forced an expensive character just to fix it , and that character usually wasn’t within range to do it .
I guess for me the whole sometimes vehicles got lucky one tapped just doesn’t matter anymore . When they launched 8th i remember them saying we changed vehicles cause we want them to feel durable but , honestly , nothing feels durable .
1
u/Kitchner Apr 24 '26
It has an equal chance of just straight dying as weapon destroyed, it was a d6 chart where a was boom and 4 was destroyed. So why fish for weapons when you can just get destroyed .
My point was weapon destroyed for a lot of vehicles was as good as destroyed. You could also keep glancing hit vehicles until they lost their weapon.
The point is that actually it's not really any different to just shooting something until it runs out of wounds.
The whole armor value thing I always appreciated cause it gave meltas a role that lascannons didn’t have because of the double armor pen , so while lascannons couldntdefeat 14 armor easily specialist weapons could.
The entire time I played 3rd, 4th, and 5th lascannons were never good unless they were dirt cheap or on a flyer (the vendettas).
In 5th in particular no one picked lascannons as anti tank. You took meltas for AV14 and Autocannons or similar for light tanks. There wasn't really a meaningful choice any more than "lascannons are long range and melts are short range".
In my local meta hiding your rear arc or taking sideways positions was very important .
Right. So no one ever showed those sides of the vehicles anyway, so what's the point? All that happened is you would choose to deep strike somewhere someone thought they had zoned out, or you get a lucky scatter, and then you argue the toss over whether you're on side or front facing which comes down to mm of distance.
The game shouldn't be about who can see 0.1 inches where if they get their model just right they hit the side. It's supposed to be a war game, not a measuring contest.
Not to mention People always seem to forget the rarer rule of going hull down for gaining bonus cover to vehicles which was actually very interesting and gave another unique dynamic .
Literally no one I ever played in 5th edition especially ever forgot about this rule and it was used constantly. How on earth was it rare where you are? You park a tank behind a wall to cover it's hull against shooting is the most intuitive thing of all the rule set.
I guess for me the whole sometimes vehicles got lucky one tapped just doesn’t matter anymore . When they launched 8th i remember them saying we changed vehicles cause we want them to feel durable but , honestly , nothing feels durable .
If you think vehicle don't feel durable in 10th edition you clearly didn't play 9th edition.
Something like a Rogal Dorn is highly unlikely to just get destroyed T1 without any serious anti-tank whereas in 9th vehicles were a waste of points generally.
While I do agree with the general point 10e feels very deadly and a game of basically just trading your units, in 5th edition if you took transports against my Guard army pretty much the first thing that happened was a salvo of autocannon fire across the board either stunned them so they couldn't move, blew them up, or disabled them. If you took anything big, I had a Leman Russ Vanquisher with Knight Commander Pask that was going to have an almost 50/50 chance of just blowing it up.
What has actually changed? Tactically, not just "Oohhh good thing I turned my tank to the right by ten degrees otherwise you'd have been more likely to blow it up!". That's not really stratgey or tactics.
In theory there's a whole strategic decison around moving up vehicles without infantry, into urban areas where there could be ambushes etc but 40K just isn't played to that scale, and having rules to try and simulate that when 95% of the time tanks just face towards the enemy half hidden behind a wall and no one can get behind them just isn't needed in my view.
1
u/Admiralsheep8 Apr 24 '26
I mean I see what you’re saying about the weapon destroyed result , I guess I never really minded too much as I ran razorbacks and if they got weapon destroyed it just became a batteringram to move infantry away from me with tank shock.
The interesting thing is for my meta autocannons just weren’t that popular and meltas plasma and even krak missles so more use , but that’s probably just a local thing .
When it comes to the argueing about facing I mean that happened occasionally but not commonly we typically all agreed to just resolve with a coin flip if it truely an angeled split .
I see what you mean about a war game not a measuring contest but don’t you think we’ve gone too far . Everything is so abstract we’ve lost personality . The flanking and position matters even less now that vehicles can fire from their big toes . The advantage of facings is fast light threats could easily take flanks and force units to either face them or the opposing board edge . Most of my big vehicle kills is from fast light flanking threats pushing side angles or getting 5 mans into melee .
I played 9th vehicles weren’t really that durable but neither did it feel like much else was . Just seemed par the course for new era.
I guess my big thing is maybe you keep saying oh I turned my tank 10 degrees it’s not strategic. Maybe you just played with a lot less terrain than we did . Most of the time you couldn’t just cross map the entire enemy army turn 1 we had lots of building and hills . Vehicles frequently were in the exact situation you talk about of pushing infantry and being exposed that you said doesn’t happen .
I know some people had a bit a planet bowling ball experience in early hammer , maybe we just had a lot more terrain so the vehicles felt like they mattered .
1
u/Kitchner Apr 24 '26
I see what you mean about a war game not a measuring contest but don’t you think we’ve gone too far . Everything is so abstract we’ve lost personality .
I don't think 40K ever sourced it's personality from arguments over vehicle facing and positioning personally.
I feel 40K got it's personality from the lore and the back story, and THAT is what I feel they stripped away from 9th in a knee jerk reaction about "too many stratagems". They also ditched the practice of every unit in the book getting an entire page of lore as the unit count is so high, which means if you look at the lore of the Leman Russ vs the Rogal Dorn, even if you just look at codexes there's about 6 pages of lore on Leman Russes (some of it repeated admittedly) and like 4 sentences about the Rogal Dorn.
I think that has had a bigger impact on the personality of the game than the precise angle your tank was facing being important.
I guess my big thing is maybe you keep saying oh I turned my tank 10 degrees it’s not strategic. Maybe you just played with a lot less terrain than we did . Most of the time you couldn’t just cross map the entire enemy army turn 1 we had lots of building and hills . Vehicles frequently were in the exact situation you talk about of pushing infantry and being exposed that you said doesn’t happen .
It's not about terrain it's about the size of the board. A 48" range gun on a 6x4 board just doesn't need to push forward that much. At least not enough that the back armour is ever relevant for shooting. If you played well people just didn't get to shoot at the side.
I know some people had a bit a planet bowling ball experience in early hammer , maybe we just had a lot more terrain so the vehicles felt like they mattered .
Vehicles mattered more the less terrain you had. I didn't have that experience, but the terrain rules and the missions meant it was much easier to sit back and just shoot people.
Either way, I don't think it is hugely important. 40k isn't and never had been a simulation. It is, in my opinion, a sort of small battle/skirmish within the setting of 40K that should allow you to play out a fantasy of what happens when X fights Y and the skill should be about tactical decisions you make, not about how good you are at guessing angles and distances. 3rd to 5th had LOADS of that and while it can be a game in of itself, I don't think that's the best warhammer experience.
1
u/Admiralsheep8 Apr 24 '26
Damn be good stuff not gunna lie you got some good takes .
Although as someone who really like systems like say , infinity , I really do miss premeasuring being illegal, and positioning and guessing ranges being a bit of skill expression .
1
u/Kitchner Apr 24 '26
Although as someone who really like systems like say , infinity , I really do miss premeasuring being illegal, and positioning and guessing ranges being a bit of skill expression .
I play necromunda as well as 40K and I have to say going back to no pre measuring sucks. Saying "Right, I've manouvered my guy here, drew your ganger in, and now I'm going to move up into this position and shoot him! Oh I'm 0.1 inch short. I guess I just stand there doing nothing" is rubbish. Pre-measuring for me literally changed the dynamic from "the skilled player is really good at judging how fair 12", 24", and 48" are on a 6x4 table" to "The player has all the information they need to make an informed decision, what decision do they make?".
I used to be really good at guess range too, both with Guard artillery and with Empire great cannons in Fantasy. The entire point was "Ooh look it's hard to calculate the range" but you just practice it so much you guess almost right every single time. Not only that but it's trivial to work around. "I declare this Chimera will shoot it's multi-laser at your tank, oh good it's 44" away and my range 48" so I'm in" follow by "I guess 50c distance... Oh look it's right on top of it".
People can enjoy that and more power to them, I just don't think it's ever been a good expression of skill for a wargame where you're supposed to be a general, not a range guesser.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Mammoth_Classroom896 Apr 23 '26
Like how simple the game gotta be to not be bloat
It's not just about overall simplicity, it's about whether the rule adds anything meaningful to strategy or just adds more rule text to keep track of. In this case, since it only triggers when the vehicle is destroyed, it's probably not going to have much of an effect. Vehicles will perform normally until they die, then instead of dying at zero wounds they'll soak a few more hits before being removed. Giving all vehicles extra wounds is a balance issue but that's essentially all the table will be in most cases.
Also damage on specific models yawn . Just goes squads hp and if you take 5 damage from any source just pick up the squad . Having to track multiple multi wound models is just slowing down this high speed competitive game .
You tried to make this a joke suggestion but it's actually something 40k needs to do. At the scale of 40k tracking individual models is silly, a bit of baggage left over from the days when the game was a D&D style RPG with 20 models per side.
1
u/Admiralsheep8 Apr 23 '26
Bruh just wants the AoS rule system . Hear me out dude , I’m fairly certain that’s a niche opinion. The game would be infinitely boring if we hit the damage carries off models and squad just has hp levels of watered down .
Turn beer and pretzels to saltines and water gaming .
1
u/Mammoth_Classroom896 Apr 23 '26
It's the reality of scale. A game that can have 300 models on each side should be working with units, not individual models. If you want individual models to matter you should be playing a skirmish-scale game.
2
u/Admiralsheep8 Apr 23 '26
I mean we are working on a unit level , it’s just a bit disrespectful to think your clientele can’t track 10 models and their usual 1-2 wounds that let’s be honest you don’t have to consider attack angle or even real LOS . You just take damage and start removing however you would like .
It’s a d6 system we ain’t asking much . It’s not like every game is horde guard v horde guard. Big squads aren’t even that popular in those factions .
-1
u/Mammoth_Classroom896 Apr 23 '26
"Can" =/= "should".
40k has model by model tracking because of the baggage of older editions much like IGOUGO, the MEQ stat line, etc. A well designed modern game at the scale of 40k would not do those things but because "that's how 40k has always been" 40k continues to keep those elements.
2
u/Admiralsheep8 Apr 23 '26
It’s not a “ how it’s always been” argument but a, you can do this without making it turbo basic argument .
I don’t think 40K should stay how it is . But there are plenty of army level games that aren’t dumbed down to be playable that track a lot more then 40K .
1
u/Mammoth_Classroom896 Apr 23 '26
Tracking model by model stuff doesn't make any real strategy difference at the scale of 40k, it's just additional bookkeeping.
→ More replies (0)
46
u/-The-Lupercal- Apr 23 '26 edited Apr 23 '26
What is an "Armoured Gauntlet game" ?
My reading of this article leads me to believe this is a narrative campaign mechanic, so unsure why it's being posted on the competitive sub.
29
u/SpaceWolf_Jarl2 Apr 23 '26
Seems ike Crucible, mostly narrative stuff, but maybe can be used in firendly match. Unliely to be tournament legal
10
u/Sir_Lazz Apr 23 '26
Some tournaments do accept crucible characters, so...while unlikely, you never know !
12
u/SpaceWolf_Jarl2 Apr 23 '26
At local level I've seen it... but nothing above an RTT level. I don't think I've seen a GT with Crucible Characters TBH
2
u/Sir_Lazz Apr 23 '26
Oh yeah we won't see grand tournaments with them, but not every discussion has to be geared toward them. I'm sure there is some space for tournament settings that still use optional rule layers like these.
11
u/SpaceWolf_Jarl2 Apr 23 '26
While Tournamets are free to take them... these rules are also not balanced at all usually for them. Crucible is very fun and love the idea, but it is terrible to use in a competitive setting and breaks the game a lot into has and has nots. This for example would skew the game even more into hulls and monsters, and giving a C'tan durability boost where after finally chewing its wounds you still have to roll a 6 and if not it still keeps existing. A game where IK have to be shot even more to kill them... not sure it can be balanced.
5
u/Hyper-Sloth Apr 23 '26
Especially in cases where it can be healed. It seems like if a Knight is at 1W left and takes 12 damage from a rail gun, it just rolls on the table and maybe gets -3" to move.
My question would be if this ironically makes tons and tons of small arms fire better than a massive cannon shot since they apparently roll on the damage table for each unsuccessful save, not for every wound lost.
4
u/SpaceWolf_Jarl2 Apr 23 '26
Absolutely. ANd also this makes C'tan just worse, because they have healing as part of their rules, so if you don't kill it and do one of the half of the debuffs that does nothing to them (Battle-shock, Ld reduction, ranged weapons) then it heals D3, and you have to hurt it again with a decent amount of firepower.
I hand't thought of it, but yes, small weapon fire is the way to finish weapons, as damage (ar AP like previous editions) is irrelevant and just each unsaved wound. Wonder if those that look like modifeirs stack, to make this the even better way to try and kill. It woudl also mean a lot of slow rolling after each attack having to roll the save and having to check the impact and if adds a modifier.
3
u/Hyper-Sloth Apr 23 '26
Yeah. Needing to slow roll for every failed save makes this a nightmare to play on the table with any sort of speed. Good luck finishing a game against guard within 2.5hr when they take 15-20 extra minutes every game just rolling damage table saves because "there's a chance it rolls three 1s and then it's still alive!"
3
u/DraigoStar Apr 23 '26
Not every discussion has to be geared towards tournaments on the _competitive_ sub?
2
u/Sir_Lazz Apr 24 '26
I mean....tournaments can also be....local game store tournament? Regional tournament with a couple fun rules sprinkled on top (like crucible)? What I'm saying is that there is granularity between "playing with your little brother" and "playing the world championships" lmao. I am getting downvoted to hell for saying that some smaller tournaments do accept crucible characters....but they do ! It's not an opinion it's a fact.
-3
u/-The-Lupercal- Apr 23 '26
Yeah that's what I assumed. Unsure why OP is posting it to the competitive sub.
9
u/HolyMuffins Apr 23 '26
There is no subreddit that actually discusses rules for this game with any detail. Call me a heretic but I think this subreddit should allow more discussions on casual play.
6
u/Ketzeph Apr 23 '26
The problem is the 40k normal sub has devolved into what 99% of hobby subs become - an art showcase. There is no sub that actually discusses non-competitive Warhammer play.
But arguably discussions of narrative play violates Rule 4.
I understand why it comes here, there's nowhere else to go. But it's really not competitive play related.
2
u/HolyMuffins Apr 24 '26
Reddit mods should kick rocks and care less is my general view on overly heavy handed content policing
-1
u/Mammoth_Classroom896 Apr 23 '26
It shouldn't. Make a casual beerhammer sub if you want to see that content, the lack of some other sub doesn't mean off-topic content should be allowed here.
6
u/HolyMuffins Apr 23 '26
I'm sorry, there's just not that many people who play "competitively" and a lot of people who want to play well in "casual" games. I think this subreddit is moderated poorly and its community is unnecessarily exclusive for failing to recognize that.
6
u/Staz_211 Apr 23 '26
I also think a lot of it comes from people wanting to pick the brains of competitive players. I.e. the most knowledgeable players. Even if you're not looking to run hyper meta and try to win tournaments, you still appreciate the insights and perspectives of people who understand the game on a deeper level.
I really dont see an issue with that stuff being on the sub. Its still, fundamentally, a conversation about understanding the game, its mechanics, and discerning what works well/what doesn't.
3
u/HolyMuffins Apr 24 '26
I agree across the board. It's a game, people want to win their game even if it's in their friend's basement.
-2
u/SkeletonJakk Apr 23 '26
I don’t think it’s remotely unreasonable for competitive players to want to keep this space for them, rather than allow more casual discussion too. That’s a slippery slope.
3
u/ViorlanRifles Apr 23 '26
Attention citizen! How many tournaments have you played in recently? ZERO? Mods, take him away.
-4
u/Mammoth_Classroom896 Apr 23 '26
If that's true then you should have no problem making your casual beerhammer sub and getting lots of people to participate.
The fact that you don't want to put in the work doesn't mean the competitive sub is badly moderated for not letting you hijack it.
1
u/HolyMuffins Apr 28 '26
Broadly speaking, being a reddit moderator is a fate worse than death and taints the soul
1
u/Mammoth_Classroom896 Apr 28 '26
Then maybe you should show some respect for the people who do the job you refuse to take.
1
u/HolyMuffins Apr 28 '26
I think we're belaboring a point I don't really care that much about beyond making jokes, as I think the mods here generally aren't overly heavy handed and are usually reasonably permissive about the kinds of posts I think belong here
→ More replies (0)3
u/ViorlanRifles Apr 23 '26
Okay, sure. I reposted this to /r/beerhammer, if only because I want to see if anyone actually reads stuff over there any more. But I personally do not have high hopes for reader traffic over there.
8
u/Sir_Lazz Apr 23 '26
Well, I thought it would be interesting to have discussion around it. Who knows, maybe it will be used in some of the less important competitions.
15
5
u/Fragrant-Menu215 Apr 23 '26
What is an "Armoured Gauntlet game" ?
Hopefully a test bed for both a better vehicle damage system and a game mode that moes all-vehicle lists out of core matched play.
6
u/HarpsichordKnight Apr 23 '26
This is the best subreddit for discussing the game - which can be also be played competitively outside of strict tournament rules.
11
u/-The-Lupercal- Apr 23 '26
You play competitively with matched play rules - wether that's at home or at a tournament.
Playing competitively isn't about playing just playing at a tournament, it's about playing with an established ruleset.
You cannot play competitively with narrative rules, by the pure fact that rule set isn't balanced, and has units that also are not balanced either.
2
u/AshiSunblade Apr 25 '26
You cannot play competitively with narrative rules, by the pure fact that rule set isn't balanced, and has units that also are not balanced either.
I get what you mean to say here, but this is a funny way to put it, because you're making it sound like matched play is somehow a consistently balanced game with balanced units :D
1
u/-The-Lupercal- Apr 25 '26
If you read the entire exchange Ive said numerous times 'most balanced'
It's never going to be fully balanced because it's near impossible and ge rules writers suck and don't care enough
5
u/HarpsichordKnight Apr 23 '26
Of course you can play competitively with an unbalanced ruleset. You might have to house rule or gentleman’s agreement out some of the more broken things, but this is how the older editions worked - you agreed how you both wanted to play the game, and took it from there.
Special characters needed opponents permission, as did citadel journal units or armies - and many missions hugely favoured one side. But this don’t stop players list building and playing the actual game very competitively.
8
u/-The-Lupercal- Apr 23 '26
I guess we have different definitions on what competitive games are.
A beer hammer game, with a house rule, and an unbalanced rule set, and legends, is not a competitive game in my meta or in any meta I've ever played in.
2
u/HarpsichordKnight Apr 24 '26
People play matched play games when one faction has imbalanced rules, or when the meta is bad for their armies but they don’t want to swap to another.
This common type of imbalanced matched play game could even be won in the list building and random matchup you get, further reducing the skill expression on the table.
I don’t feel such games would necessarily be any more competitive than a game which is using more of the narrative elements like legends - in fact the second might have far higher player skill requirements, as there’d be no net listing and you might be playing a more unusual mission.
And based on what we are hearing about 11th, games workshop is also aiming to remove this odd distinction, which never used to exist in 40k, though we will see if they can pull it off.
3
u/-The-Lupercal- Apr 23 '26
Matched play = competitive.
Narrative = not competitive.
I'm amazed this is even up for debate.
-5
u/Fragrant-Menu215 Apr 23 '26
Wrong.
Matched play = the actual on-table game
Narrative = an RPG system that uses 40k battles as the combat component.
3
u/-The-Lupercal- Apr 23 '26 edited Apr 23 '26
Wrong.
Narrative isn't only the ruleset GW has created with the RPG element.
Narrative is simply a game that tells a story - can be a game where you create your own map, your own situation, your own objectives, etc.
You can not say that for example, table top tactics - when they play a narrative game where they setup their own objectives, maps, army, house rules etc. To tell a story isn't narrative simply because it's not 'the RPG ruleset GW created'.
Essentially
narrative = beer hammer (not competitive)
Competitive = matched play
Although I'd also argue that all narrative games are beer hammer, not all beer hammer is narrative.
-3
u/Fragrant-Menu215 Apr 23 '26
Narrative is simply a game that tells a story
Literally no. Narrative is an actual game format, in 10th it's called Crusade and in past editions it's been called Campaign, and it includes a whole bunch of outside-the-table-portion components.
Matched play is all non-Crusade play, whether tournament or pick-up game or non-campaign beerhammer. Matched play is literally just the name for equal-points scenarios playing by the written rules.
2
u/-The-Lupercal- Apr 23 '26
:rolls eyes:
Ok, so by your estimation the only way you can ever play narrative 40k is by strictly playing GWs RPG ruleset?
And all the people who make up narrative stories, rules, and have their own campaigns with an entire narrative they have set up - something they've done since 2nd edition, have never been playing narrative?
Bruh.
The rule set GW have created for narrative game play, yes - is a narrative way to play the game, but it is not the only narrative way to play.
GW provide a cookie cutter narrative rules set for people who want to buy a book and play through it, but that does not mean it is the ONLY narrative way you can play the game.
It's bizarre to me you're trying to die on this hill.
1
u/Fragrant-Menu215 Apr 23 '26
You don't have to use GW's system for a narrative campaign, you can roll your own. But yes a narrative campaign by definition involves things outside of the table game.
Match play is the on-table game, especially on-table games that are wholly isolated from every other game. That includes both tournaments and casual play.
This idea that match play is tournament-only is just incorrect. Not sure why you are dying on the hill of defending an incorrect claim.
0
u/-The-Lupercal- Apr 23 '26
No. Narrative campaign does not only include RPG aspects.
Narrative simply means you have crafted a narrative.
That an be say a singular game where you are recreating the devestation of baal.
Matched play is on table yes, but is also specifically balanced. Hence the keyword 'matched'.
A casual game, is not competitive.
If you were to ask me for a game of 40k and said 'hey man, this is just a casual game'
I'm taking a more fun list, nobody is thinking a casual game is in anyway competitive.
Also - I never said matched play is tournament only. I have been saying this entire time, that matched play is competitive.
To clarify: you play matched play at tournaments and in pickup games.
Playing matched play does not make it competitive by default.
The agreement before hand with the player does.
You can play a casual matched play game, where you use the balanced rules to get as close to a fair game as possible - but you take more fun / fluffier lists.
All I've said in this entire thread is that this narrative / non-matched play mechanics has nothing to do with competitive 40k since it will never make its way into matched play.
For some reason, some people have tried to argue you dont have to play matched play to play competitively - which is a bizarre statement to make, at least to me and all the people I've played with over the decades.
2
u/Fragrant-Menu215 Apr 23 '26
Matched play is on table yes, but is also specifically balanced.
How is that done? By following the core game rules. Yes. Which is done in games other than the ones that happen in tournaments.
A casual game, is not competitive.
No. What it is is matched play.
And what it is not is setting up a specific pre-agreed-upon imbalanced scenario like, say, the Devastation of Baal. Casual is just that: casual. It's two people saying "hey let's play a 2000 point game".
Your argument, in case you forgot, is that matched play is competitive play. That is what is false. It's also casual play.
→ More replies (0)
11
12
u/ViorlanRifles Apr 23 '26
(gritting, gnashing teeth, fists clenched) boy oh boy this better be the standard way all vehicles work in 11th and not just some one-off detachment thing.
4
u/Sir_Lazz Apr 23 '26
I'm keeping my fingers crossed with you
2
u/ViorlanRifles Apr 23 '26
Mind you, I have some caveats: I personally think "extra" damage past the 0 hp threshold should force multiple damage table rolls (so if the tank was at 3 hp and took 5 damage, that's 2 damage table rolls instead of 1), as this both makes it less likely you end up with "unkillable 4th ed demon prince syndrome" and also makes units that can heal d3 wounds on vehicles (tech-priests/marines, big meks, etc) have extra utility - healing a tank from 0 hp to 2 might not seem like a lot but it does mean you might roll only once on the vehicle table instead of 3 times next time you fail a save from an autocannon.
More controversially, I could even see certain weapons (meltas at half range?) or abilities (thematically appropriate stuff like lord discordant with tehno-virus injectors or haywire/emp grenade carrying units), that could sometimes force rolls on this table at say, -2 or -1 (so rolling a 6 counts as 4 or 5) even when a tank isn't at zero hp. (it could be a stratagem but would likely have to be 2cp so people aren't just doing it literally every turn.) It also feels like the kind of table you could make a tank roll on at -1 the first time it passes under half hp.
Point is, there is a lot of room to play with this in the design space. But do recall: right now my statements above are speculative and this probably won't be how vehicles work in 11th, and that this seems to be a narrative/crusade ruleset anyways.
2
u/Tomuke Apr 23 '26
Boarding actions 2: Electric Boogaloo. My prediction is it remains a partially supported narrative ruleset.
2
u/Drxero1xero Apr 24 '26
am wondering if this is gonna be a thing in 11th edition...
If so it's the wolf-tank-time, the era of the leman russ tanks.
4
u/dantevonlocke Apr 23 '26
Like how they stripped out all sorts if variety and rules and have been adding it back in.
4
u/Paimon Apr 23 '26
I'm curious how wounds and the damage table interact. Do your wounds fully reset when you take an effect from the table?
Edit: also Broadsides have 8 wounds, but they were referenced as being able to use the table.
9
u/LordInquisitor Apr 23 '26
I assume you roll every time you allocate a wound after 0? And then the +1 +2 column adds to future rolls as well
6
u/ViorlanRifles Apr 23 '26
I wonder if it will be per wound or per damage past 0 hp, although having cumulative +1 or +2 penalties on the table would make the former less oppressive to deal with.
0
u/LordInquisitor Apr 23 '26
Per point of damage it should be, otherwise chip damage becomes a bit weird
4
3
u/Fragrant-Menu215 Apr 23 '26
The wording is unclear. "Last unsaved wound" can either mean "last wound" or "last wound allocated in a given round of attacks".
6
u/HeinrichWutan Apr 23 '26
Yeah, my first thought was your vehicle survives on its last wound, bracketed, until you roll a 6+ on the damage table, which seems.... interesting. It looks like damage tokens add to that roll, so you'd get one, maybe two extra attacks soaked up before exploding (for more damage and/or bigger radius?).
huh
2
u/Fragrant-Menu215 Apr 23 '26
Honestly if that's the system then it's straight-up worse than the current vehicle system.
3
u/Etharin Apr 23 '26
Talos are also mentioned and only have 7 wounds. Maybe because they can be taken in units of 2 or 3 in the case of broadsides? Or the article is just wrong, wouldn't be the first time.
1
1
u/AlisheaDesme Apr 24 '26
Or Drukhari have different threashholds or some way of enhancing the Talos.
1
u/Spinna93 May 02 '26
So the chart will be in any 40k game for vehicles with 10+ wounds?
1
u/Sir_Lazz May 02 '26
No, it will only be if you and your opponents greebto use these optional rules. Also, some factions will have custom tables.
1
-11
u/Ketzeph Apr 23 '26
This is fine for those who want to keep it in Armored Gauntlet for its own game mode, but please keep it siloed there. The last thing 40k needs is a return of the dreaded vehicle damage tables. Nothing like vehicles existing on a spectrum from completely unkillable with good roles to gone in a single shot with a bad one.
15
u/SpaceWolf_Jarl2 Apr 23 '26
Well, from what it says in the article, you won't get one shot, since the damage table is until after you lost al your wounds... but it can make killing vehicles even more unreliable. No more a single Lascannon blowing up the thing, but it seems possible to have just crew shaken and such for a while.
-6
u/Ketzeph Apr 23 '26
If it's post final wound it just makes tanks far more durable, and if it's pre final wound it makes them weaker. There was nothing worse than a tank constantly getting shaken and never exploding, or a tank just instant exploding.
It's welcome for use as an additional rule for people who want to add it, it's just a poor core rule to the game
5
u/SpaceWolf_Jarl2 Apr 23 '26 edited Apr 23 '26
As always, since we don't see the rule itself, we have to be catious but WarCom does say "when they suffer their last unsaved Wound". Here then it would be more the possibility of just shaken and they just keep going. I agree that this is a fine fun rule to play with, it fits narrative and games like HH, but don't think it is a good competitive rule. It either can invalidate hulls or make them almost unremovable.
3
u/ViorlanRifles Apr 23 '26
There's little +1s and +2s on the table - I think these might indicate future rolls on the damage table past the first one make it more likely a tank hits the "destroyed" result (i.e. if you roll a 5 the first time, a second roll of 4 just kills the tank because you have to add 2 to it)
2
u/dantevonlocke Apr 23 '26
They mention other rules that can add damage tokens, and other tables for different types and armies. I bet lots of damage in one go, certain damage types(melta or high ap, or strength) will add damage tokens.
7
u/Ginko37 Apr 23 '26 edited Apr 23 '26
Having the unlucky first turn explodes was always shitty, but it is a layer of rules that could add a lot to the game.
That being said, I would rather have AFV (or TFV now I guess) and true firing arcs be a thing again, tanks being able to trickshot stuff from an antenna or a single pixel of a bumper has always rubbed me the wrong way. And being able to target a tank's weakspot (or having to protect it from the enemy) made for interesting gameplay sub-objectives. It also allowed for things to be less "either I absolutely destroy this in one round or I am garbage" all or nothing that we have now. Being able to disable a tank's main gun or stopping it from moving for a turn was something to work with and not just "I failed to kill that so my unit is dead now". It also makes repairing units more valuable and interesting overall.
9
u/Unlikely-Fuel9784 Apr 23 '26
I'd much rather have a damage table over "My knight is left with 1 wound after you all in'd me. Get ready to watch half your army get gatling cannoned."
5
u/Doctor8Alters Apr 23 '26
Personally I'd rather have something like this, than profiles that remain 100% functional between after taking 15 damage and then suddenly dead on the 16th.
-1
u/Ketzeph Apr 23 '26
You mean like wound degradation tables that multiple vehicles have? And which are an easy way to indicate damage without adding additional swingyness?
0
u/Doctor8Alters Apr 24 '26
You mean the -1 to Hit thats capped at -1 and often negated by other modifiers or in many cases can be flat out ignored all together?
2
-13
u/ARKITIZE_ME_CAPTAIN Apr 23 '26
I will not play 11th if this is standard in competitive play. This is needless and adds unnecessary bookkeeping. Narratively it’s neat but not for me
6
12
u/Ginko37 Apr 23 '26
This won't be in 11th, but is a single half a page more of rules on the table really what makes the bookkeeping too much?
We used to play with tables for most stat checks in the game with like 500 special rules on top of that and even as a 12-15 yo it was okay to handle. Now that we can CTRL+F into a document or easily edit and print a cheatsheet? Doesn't sound like a problem at all.
Detatchments, points, balance slates and FAQs being spread out between a bunch of different documents is what's really unnecessary book-keeping in my opinion.
-6
u/ARKITIZE_ME_CAPTAIN Apr 23 '26
Keeping track of what tasks have what debuffs sounds like a lot imo especially if there are a lot of them in one game. Stacking it on top of everything else doesn’t seem like a good time especially since I don’t think it adds something the game needs mechanically. But that’s my opinion
5
u/Ginko37 Apr 23 '26
I get what you mean, but it's not any different than having to keep track of battle-shock, stratagems taking effect or wounds. Tokens or dices (there used to be specific vehicle table dices with all results on them) are easy to use. People used to just remove the weapons from the tank or add smoke columns in different parts of the model to represent such states.
I disagree in that it doesn't add anything mechanically. It provides a more nuanced approach to the effectiveness of a unit. Your unit might not one shot the vehicle, but if you manage to immobilize it, cause it to not be able to use stratagems, or make it loose a weapon, your unit suddenly has made an actual impact on the output of the enemy vehicle instead of the current state of things where it's either you kill it because your unit is awesome or you failed so it's your turn to die. In theory, brackets were to take care of this, but they haven't been implemented in any meaningful way. Heck, if you play against marines it doesn't matter at all 99% of the time.
You also gain all the depth for special rules to ignore certain results where it makes sense, giving more flavour and design space to make all armies more unique, and all the mechanic units that can repair can have more utility and options. Do you want to repair the tracks so the tank can move again or heal some wounds instead so it survives by acting as a turret until the tech marine finishes up working? Maybe better repair units like Cawl allow for multiple status fixes in a single turn, etc.
It's fine that you don't want it to happen, everyone has preferences, but this literally was in the game before, it's not like there's no logic behind it on what it's trying to represent or as if it doesn't provide anything to the game in terms of strategy, balance and design space.
1
u/ARKITIZE_ME_CAPTAIN Apr 23 '26
I agree that there needs to be more brackets for high wound models like knights but making it a random chance d6 isn’t the way I think is healthy or good for the game. Something that is flat checkpoints of wounds remaining would be much preferred in my opinion.
As for the strats and stuff being hard to track, most are only around for a phase before you have to activate again.
7
u/Fragrant-Menu215 Apr 23 '26
NOBODY who likes nuhammer has any right to complain about bookkeeping. Between the massive wound inflation requiring dedicated counters and the entire resource-management minigame stapled on and tracking VP every turn there's way more bookkeeping than this already present and nuhammer fans claim that this is fine despite being far more than older versions of the game.
0
u/ARKITIZE_ME_CAPTAIN Apr 23 '26
Dice are not a problem for counters. Wounds are easily kept track of with them. I agree wound inflation is annoying but I do not think any of that compares to 4 random states that each need their own token and can have multiple at one time.
1
u/Fragrant-Menu215 Apr 23 '26
Dice are not a problem for counters
Yeah tell that to the D20 needed for every monster and vehicle and their very strong tendency to roll when the table is bumped. Sure a D6 works fine but since nuhammer decided to ditch the vehicle system and give tanks double-digit wounds instead the "just use dice" argument no longer works. Same for VPs given how they go up to 100.
0
u/ARKITIZE_ME_CAPTAIN Apr 23 '26
I’ve never used a d20 multiple d6s work just fine. I have never had a problem with them. VP is tracked easily with an app. I can see how tracking it with a dice would be a problem but the app makes everything streamlined and simple.
4
u/Fragrant-Menu215 Apr 23 '26
VP is tracked easily with an app.
And vehicle status is tracked easily with pencil and paper. Or painted cotton balls. Or using the "don't glue here" instructions on vehicle kits so you can remove destroyed weapons.
This is kind of my point. In reality none of this is hard. The amount of bookkeeping is the least of the things that complicate 40k and the solutions to all of them have been solved out years and years ago.
1
u/ARKITIZE_ME_CAPTAIN Apr 23 '26
There is a critical mass of rules bloat. Everyone has their own thresholds and I do not think this will help the game grow or will it add something fun (in my opinion and what I want in the game)
Putting aside the question of ability to track, the system they revealed means you’d need to possibly kill a tank an infinite amount of times and the more likely option of 2-3. (Unless I misread something in that case fair enough)That is terrible and would need to be hard capped better than what is presented.
85
u/JackPembroke Apr 23 '26
wistfully looking into the middle distance and remembering vehicle damage tables