N18 Vehicle Collision Damage Strangeness

[Acid-Bath Alice]

So just got my copy of the Book of the Outlands and immediately went to the vehicle section to read about how they work, as a big part of my excitement for ash wastes was my nostalgia playing Gorkamorka as a kid. And naturally the best memory their is ramming trucks into each other as your vehicle was one now the strongest weapons you had.

However looking at the collision damage table for necromunda has me scratching my head a bit, largely because the strength, AP and damage are tied to the vehicles movement characteristic on its profile, not how far it actually moved during its activation. This means an Orlock quad that reverses just 3" over a fighter would cause a S7, -2' D2 hit. Whereas a goliath truck (without the rock grinder ram) that runs someone over using the full throttle action, trippling it's movement, would still only hit them for S3, Ap-, D1?!

Also as an aside, it's a bit wet that the cargo-8 ridgehauler can't have a ram body upgrade even though there's one on the model.

 

[TopsyKretts]

Something else that's going to be annoying are mounts requiring book keeping to remember how far each one moved in the previous activation/ round to determine knock down damage.

Also funny for a game like Necromunda where the devs were so adamant on the "put away the clippers" principle, that's all gone now for vehicles & crews. The crew consists of up to multiple models, they can change vehicle after any battle. The vehicles can also change weapons, wargear and equipment after any battle. But I don't think crew can change their weapons?

 

[Acid-Bath Alice]

Another thing I forgot to mention is that there's no point, RAW, for a goliath truck or any vehicle with a movement characteristic of 5 or below using the ram double action to reduce the damage to themselves as they already are at the lowest strength on the chart. You may as well just use multiple move actions or full throttle to bump into enemy models.

The more I read it, the more it feels like the damage table should be based on the distance moved during the activation until the collision.

 

[MusingWarboss]

Also funny for a game like Necromunda where the devs were so adamant on the "put away the clippers" principle, that's all gone now for vehicles & crews. The crew consists of up to multiple models, they can change vehicle after any battle.

Ah, that’ll be the “Get out your Dremel” rule*! Especially included for all the converters and kitbashers out there.

*no such rule exists, I’m just teasing.

 

[Scabs]

I never liked ramming. It's OK for GorkaMorka Orks. It's OK to run over pedestrians. But deliberately crashing vehicles into each other is fraught. Fraught from a gaming point of view because it takes zero skill and takes fun from the game. Plus, making an unarmed vehicle as powerful as one with weapons due to ramming is counter to the whole narrative.

Speaking of narrative, you are driving around in an extremely hostile Ash Wastes in your cobbled together claptrap ride. It's dang near irreplaceable, and you depend on it for your livelihood. You really gonna intentionally ram other vehicles, and risk breaking down many kilos from shelter in a desert with winds that can strip flesh from bone? I'm reminded of my Jeep Grand Cherokee we bought before kids; when we had a life and disposable income. It was well appointed luxury with Jeep quality 4-wheel drive. Was I really going to go off-roading in a $50K vehicle? Hint: the female person that mades up the other half of "we" would have had my hide.

 

[DamianK]

I never liked ramming. It's OK for GorkaMorka Orks. It's OK to run over pedestrians. But deliberately crashing vehicles into each other is fraught. Fraught from a gaming point of view because it takes zero skill and takes fun from the game. Plus, making an unarmed vehicle as powerful as one with weapons due to ramming is counter to the whole narrative.

Speaking of narrative, you are driving around in an extremely hostile Ash Wastes in your cobbled together claptrap ride. It's dang near irreplaceable, and you depend on it for your livelihood. You really gonna intentionally ram other vehicles, and risk breaking down many kilos from shelter in a desert with winds that can strip flesh from bone?

On a flip side, these guys are already in a firefight, so their precious vehicle is already in a danger of getting shot to bits. And if they are in real danger of getting killed, doing everything to survive now is probably a bigger deciding factor than worrying about a future ash storm. So yeah, if I were in their place, I`d be ramming the heck out of enemy vehicle if that meant my survival. Besides, if ramming is a probable option, they would most likely prepare and modify their vehicles in various ways beforehand.

 

[JawRippa]

I never liked ramming. It's OK for GorkaMorka Orks. It's OK to run over pedestrians. But deliberately crashing vehicles into each other is fraught. Fraught from a gaming point of view because it takes zero skill and takes fun from the game. Plus, making an unarmed vehicle as powerful as one with weapons due to ramming is counter to the whole narrative.

It depends on how ramming is done. In a car skirmish game Gaslands it is very fun and takes some skill:

• You do not want to be caught ramming heavier vehicles, as you take much more damage than the target this way.
• You move by using templates, their selection is speed dependant, also no premeasures; so you could miss the ram entirely.
• After ramming occurs opponent gets to choose whether to damage you back (ram back) or try to negate some damage (try to swerve away last second).

However looking at the collision damage table for necromunda has me scratching my head a bit, largely because the strength, AP and damage are tied to the vehicles movement characteristic on its profile, not how far it actually moved during its activation.

I've sent the vehicle rules into an imaginary dumpster after learning exactly that. The ruleset is extremely weird overall, it dumbs down important things too much, while making you bookkeep very niche details. If we are remembering how far have the mounted guys moved, why not keep track of it for all vehicles?

 

[Monsterhelmet]

I think you are supposed to keep track of how far you moved . Just written in a horrible way. That’s how we are going to play it nothing else makes sense

 

[Scabs]

Our first few games with the Ash Waste box vehicles (just buggies) went smoothly. No real issues. One accidental ram that caused an accidental ram into a ruined building that destroyed the vehicle. Hilarious! Tracking how far each vehicle last moved sounds tedious.

 

[Heart of Storm]

Makes me think of some time i spent with a former colleague of mine who was ex-SAS, once went on a car journey with him when I commented on his rather aggressive driving style, he was at pains to explain that what he was doing was from his defensive driving classes, which was all about using his vehicle to assert space and maintain control, whereas aggressive driving in his school was using his vehicle to attack and kill people.

Ramming was very much in that latter playbook, and so I do accept that driving your car into that one guy you REALLY want to kill is absolutely a thing on Necromunda.

 

[EAfirstlast]

also, like, one of the vehicles GW made base has a giant F off spinning saw dozer on the front of it.

And mad max rammed plenty of vehicles.

 

[Smigs]

Wait, am I the only one yhat read ramming rules to imply BOTH vehicles take ram damage,

Thus the buggy rams a truck, they both take hits?

 

[Acid-Bath Alice]

That's right, the same damage is allocated to both. But the damage, AP and strength will be increased by 1 for the vehicle with the lower T on the facings involved in the impact.

The rammer can also increase the damage inflicted to the rammee if they have a ram upgrade.

 

[mateyboy3000]

Wait, am I the only one yhat read ramming rules to imply BOTH vehicles take ram damage,

Thus the buggy rams a truck, they both take hits?

They don't imply both vehicles take damage. They are explicit that both vehicles take damage/the hit in the vehicle collision damage header bit (pg 68 in Ash wastes rules)

 

[JawRippa]

After trying vehicles, I can safely say that they were borderline unplayable due to sheer wonkiness. Vehicles do not feel like having weight or speed, they are more like terrain that moves around. If you do not collide with them, they are tolerable, but Gorka-Morka did it way better.
In other words, do not waste your money and stay away.

 

[Noshrok Grimskull]

In other words, do not waste your money and stay away.

Or grab a few of the new vehicles and use them with Gorkamorka. (That's what I want to do.)

 

[ChapterAquila92]

However looking at the collision damage table for necromunda has me scratching my head a bit, largely because the strength, AP and damage are tied to the vehicles movement characteristic on its profile, not how far it actually moved during its activation. This means an Orlock quad that reverses just 3" over a fighter would cause a S7, -2' D2 hit. Whereas a goliath truck (without the rock grinder ram) that runs someone over using the full throttle action, trippling it's movement, would still only hit them for S3, Ap-, D1?!

Also as an aside, it's a bit wet that the cargo-8 ridgehauler can't have a ram body upgrade even though there's one on the model.

From the sounds of things, this is something in which Necromunda should be taking cues from Adeptus Titanicus, where the potential damage from a collision between two models is based on their respective scales or sizes.

My personal thought on the matter is that at the base damage caused by a ramming attack should be similarly based on the vehicle's structural integrity as follows:
Strength = Front Toughness value
AP = 0
Damage = Starting Hull Points

Modifiers outside of additional wargear can be as follows:
+1 Strength for every 5" of movement during activation
-1 AP for every point of positive size difference vs target (Fighter = 0, Light Vehicle = 1, Medium Vehicle = 2, Heavy vehicle = 3)

After all, the most powerful weapon system that anything or anyone has access to is going to always at least be as powerful as their propulsion system.

 

[mateyboy3000]

From the sounds of things, this is something in which Necromunda should be taking cues from Adeptus Titanicus, where the potential damage from a collision between two models is based on their respective scales or sizes.

My personal thought on the matter is that at the base damage caused by a ramming attack should be similarly based on the vehicle's structural integrity as follows:
Strength = Front Toughness value
AP = 0
Damage = Starting Hull Points

Modifiers outside of additional wargear can be as follows:
+1 Strength for every 5" of movement during activation
-1 AP for every point of positive size difference vs target (Fighter = 0, Light Vehicle = 1, Medium Vehicle = 2, Heavy vehicle = 3)

After all, the most powerful weapon system that anything or anyone has access to is going to always at least be as powerful as their propulsion system.

The issue with this system is it weighs so much in the larger vehicles favour and makes the Ridgehauler even more op than it already is, a Ridgehauler with 1 trailer is always wounding on a 3+ or better (unless head to head with another hauler) and has an 86% chance of a catastrophic hit because its an 11D hit (this also insta kills any non vehicle in the game unless the sum of toughness and wounds is 12) adding more trailers makes the catastrophic hit even more likely.

In comparison an orlock quad is only capable of generating a S 5 hit which makes ramming anything above a light vehicle pointless (a wolfquad S4)

 

[ChapterAquila92]

The issue with this system is it weighs so much in the larger vehicles favour and makes the Ridgehauler even more op than it already is, a Ridgehauler with 1 trailer is always wounding on a 3+ or better (unless head to head with another hauler) and has an 86% chance of a catastrophic hit because its an 11D hit (this also insta kills any non vehicle in the game unless the sum of toughness and wounds is 12) adding more trailers makes the catastrophic hit even more likely.

In comparison an orlock quad is only capable of generating a S 5 hit which makes ramming anything above a light vehicle pointless (a wolfquad S4)

And? Unless you're packing explosives on a suicide buggy, I'd expect larger vehicles moving at speed to cause more damage through ramming anyway. I also can't say I've met very many people who've survived being splattered by an 18-wheeler, let alone one that's deliberately trying to run them over.

Admittedly, I didn't factor in ridgehauler trailers, but now that I'm aware of what they add to the vehicle I'd say ignore them for the purposes of ramming with it, particularly because they're dead weight being towed along and not a motorized extension of the ridgehauler itself.

 

[Red Star]

So just got my copy of the Book of the Outlands and immediately went to the vehicle section to read about how they work, as a big part of my excitement for ash wastes was my nostalgia playing Gorkamorka as a kid. And naturally the best memory their is ramming trucks into each other as your vehicle was one now the strongest weapons you had.

However looking at the collision damage table for necromunda has me scratching my head a bit, largely because the strength, AP and damage are tied to the vehicles movement characteristic on its profile, not how far it actually moved during its activation. This means an Orlock quad that reverses just 3" over a fighter would cause a S7, -2' D2 hit. Whereas a goliath truck (without the rock grinder ram) that runs someone over using the full throttle action, trippling it's movement, would still only hit them for S3, Ap-, D1?!

Also as an aside, it's a bit wet that the cargo-8 ridgehauler can't have a ram body upgrade even though there's one on the model.

Hmm I also agree that the rules are written poorly here. I think rules as written sounds like how you've outlined it but rules as intended should be how much the vehicle is actually moving??

I've turned to FB for some guidance but I'm a bit miffed they did not correct this in the new rule book...
I also see a few youtubers play batreps as combined movement rather than "movement characteristic" but open to correction here.