Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

This is a change to the vehicle damage rules, to make them a bit tougher against weapons that aren't really meant to be AT weapons (in my opinion). Yes it is inspired by another game and some may recognize it.

The change: For each penetrating hit roll on the vehicle damage table. A hull-point is lost iff (if and only if) the result on the dice is equal to or greater than the AP value of the weapon. For each glancing hit roll a dice, if the result is equal to or greater than the AP value the vehicle looses a hull point.
AP 1 & 2 weapons no longer grant a bonus to rolls on the vehicle damage table.

A change to the vehicle damage table itself might be needed for this to be implemented, but what do you all think? I want make AP a bit more relevant vehicle damage, because IMO it's the AP 1-3 weapons that are supposed to be anti-tank weapons. But hey, that's my opinion. I'm a Tau player and I thought it was weird that HYMPs often made better anti-tank weapons than Rail-rifles.

I think it's pretty damned obvious that the table would have to be changeed given that it runs 1-7 and dice only has 6 sides.

There's no need to be sarcastic mate. I didn't know that. I only have the 6th and 5th edition rulebooks, because 7th is garbage that fiddled with the rules only enough to invalidate previous editions, as was intended.

It' may have been worth mentioning in the original post that this was not based of the 7th Edition Rules. I had to read through a few times then see your comment before understanding why it made no sense to me.

I still don't understand what's going on with these changes since I've never read a set of rules apart from 7th Edition BRB.

For the rule itself: I can't comment because I don't understand it. It may also be worth mentioning two thing:

(i) I'll re-iterate: You should note in the original post that this is a change in rules based of an edition that isn't 7th.

(ii) Maybe a little more clarity is needed in your rule. For example:

For each penetrating hit roll on the vehicle damage table. A hull-point is lost iff (if and only if) the result on the dice is equal to or greater than the AP value of the weapon.

A couple of things come to mind, the first being: Why does the Penetrating Hit NOT automatically cause HP damage? It's a Penetrating Hit and, by its very nature, it penetrates the hull of the vehicle. The second it: Does the D6 result still give incur a result from the VDT? because you never explicitly said so.

My apologies, I did not specifically mean that this was not based on 7th edition rules, and I figured I had covered it anyway with my mention of revising the VDT. I had forgotten that the table was extended to 7 now. I also responded a bit too defensively to your comment, and I shouldn't have, sorry.

Let me try again, the other way around:
For each glancing hit roll a D6. If the result is equal to greater than the AP value of the weapon, a hull-point is lost.
For each penetrating hit roll on the vehicle damage table with a D6. Apply the result of the damage table, and if the D6 result was greater than or equal to the AP value of the weapon the target also looses a hull point, in addition to suffering the damage from the table.
I did think that I was explicit enough in the first post, since I did mention the VDT. I would have just said "roll a D6" if I was going to ignore damage results.

 IllumiNini wrote:


A couple of things come to mind, the first being: Why does the Penetrating Hit NOT automatically cause HP damage? It's a Penetrating Hit and, by its very nature, it penetrates the hull of the vehicle. The second it: Does the D6 result still give incur a result from the VDT? because you never explicitly said so.

Hmm... good question. I did want to generally reduce the rate of hull-point loss, but perhaps this is too far. This could be a rule just for glancing hits I suppose. In applying it to both glancing and penetrating hits I also wanted to change the AP affects vehicles, rather than just having +1 for AP 2 and +2 for AP 3.
This needs work, I know.

Marksman224 wrote:
Let me try again, the other way around:

For each glancing hit roll a D6. If the result is equal to greater than the AP value of the weapon, a hull-point is lost.

For each penetrating hit roll on the vehicle damage table with a D6. Apply the result of the damage table, and if the D6 result was greater than or equal to the AP value of the weapon the target also looses a hull point, in addition to suffering the damage from the table.

The Glancing Hit sounds OK. It would also mean things like bashing Ork Trucks to death with Glancing Hits with Tactical Marines carrying Chainswords cannot happen (which is a good thing).

As for the Penetrating Hit thing, I would reverse it: I would say that a Penetrating Hit automatically inflicts a Hull Point. This next bit gets a bit cumbersome (but not that much): Roll a D6, and if the result is equal to or higher than the AP of the Weapon, then roll another D6 and apply any modifiers as normal (e.g. +1 for AP2), applying the corresponding result on the VDT to the vehicle.

Marksman224 wrote:

 IllumiNini wrote:
A couple of things come to mind, the first being: Why does the Penetrating Hit NOT automatically cause HP damage? It's a Penetrating Hit and, by its very nature, it penetrates the hull of the vehicle. The second it: Does the D6 result still give incur a result from the VDT? because you never explicitly said so.

Hmm... good question. I did want to generally reduce the rate of hull-point loss, but perhaps this is too far. This could be a rule just for glancing hits I suppose.

Reducing the rate of Hull Point loss in this way would probably unbalance the game in ways that would be difficult to balance again without reversing the changes you made.

Plus I think that a reduction in Hull Point loss rate may result in vehicles being more survivable than they need to be (the operative word being 'may' since it depends on how much you slow the Hull Point loss).

A better way to look at it may be to look at it would be to consider the scenarios where additional Hull Points are inflicted for little or not cost. For example, a popular change (that I've suggested and supported) is that additional Immobilised results from the 7th Edition VDT does not inflict additional Hull Points (which it currently does).

Marksman224 wrote:
This needs work, I know.

Don't worry, that's what this discussion is for haha

 IllumiNini wrote:

Reducing the rate of Hull Point loss in this way would probably unbalance the game in ways that would be difficult to balance again without reversing the changes you made.

Plus I think that a reduction in Hull Point loss rate may result in vehicles being more survivable than they need to be (the operative word being 'may' since it depends on how much you slow the Hull Point loss).

A better way to look at it may be to look at it would be to consider the scenarios where additional Hull Points are inflicted for little or not cost. For example, a popular change (that I've suggested and supported) is that additional Immobilised results from the 7th Edition VDT does not inflict additional Hull Points (which it currently does).

Ah yes, that's a good point about extra hull points being lost to repeat damage results. But I wouldn't want to just add a clause specifically for immobilized results. Surely the problem is in the fact that each glancing hit instantly removes a hull point. Adding an exception for one case seems unwise to me.
What I would really like to do if I could do anything is get a system that works without hull-points. So maybe that's what I should work on.

Marksman224 wrote:

 IllumiNini wrote:

Reducing the rate of Hull Point loss in this way would probably unbalance the game in ways that would be difficult to balance again without reversing the changes you made.

Plus I think that a reduction in Hull Point loss rate may result in vehicles being more survivable than they need to be (the operative word being 'may' since it depends on how much you slow the Hull Point loss).

A better way to look at it may be to look at it would be to consider the scenarios where additional Hull Points are inflicted for little or not cost. For example, a popular change (that I've suggested and supported) is that additional Immobilised results from the 7th Edition VDT does not inflict additional Hull Points (which it currently does).

Ah yes, that's a good point about extra hull points being lost to repeat damage results. But I wouldn't want to just add a clause specifically for immobilized results. Surely the problem is in the fact that each glancing hit instantly removes a hull point. Adding an exception for one case seems unwise to me.

With the Immobilised Result, it's the only one that removed an addition Hull Point with every addition result. So if anything, creating a clause for the Immobilised Result seems logical to me. And the Glancing Hit thing is fixed by your suggestion of the following:

For each glancing hit roll a D6. If the result is equal to greater than the AP value of the weapon, a hull-point is lost.

Marksman224 wrote:
What I would really like to do if I could do anything is get a system that works without hull-points. So maybe that's what I should work on.

That would be incredibly difficult, but if you think you can do it, go for it. I personally think the Hull Point system is good. It just needs some balancing.

Right, so it sounds like fixing the problem with extra immobilized results would involve removing a clause rather than adding one.

Marksman224 wrote:
Right, so it sounds like fixing the problem with extra immobilized results would involve removing a clause rather than adding one.

Essentially yes since the last sentence of the entry for the Immobilised Result is as follows:

Any Immobilised results suffered by an already Immobilised vehicle instead remove an additional Hull Point.

So to fix this (which is, in my experience, considered to be an issue), all you have to do is effectively remove this.

I am going to have to agree with the removal of the additional hp loss from the immobilized should be removed. That is like a kick to the nut sacks when you are already on the ground. MCs and GMCs dont ever get this kick in their nut sacks.

Well with such a blatantly unfair rule I think it should be easy enough for players to agree to ignore it.