I have always wondered this question and what others in the community think.

Hull Points are a terrible system which basically turn vehicles into monstrous creatures without saves or attacks and still incredibly vulnerable in melee.

Also the damage system makes no sense. Bring back the 5th edition charts.

 master of ordinance wrote:
Hull Points are a terrible system which basically turn vehicles into monstrous creatures without saves or attacks and still incredibly vulnerable in melee.

Also the damage system makes no sense. Bring back the 5th edition charts.

That wasnt much better, i would rather not see the return of the parking lot. Honestly i think Hull Points could work, but their current incarnation is bad.

JinxDragon wrote:
I have always wondered this question and what others in the community think.

I don't believe they're a good mechanic.

They were a response to some issues in 5E, being that vehicle kill was highly variable. The real big issues was cheap transports that ignored 5/6 glancing hits and 1/2 penetrating hits. Nobody really complained about gun-tanks, any glancing or penetrating hit would generally shut them down for at least one full turn.

The problem is twofold. GW gave vehicles "wounds", but not saves which typically accompany wounds. They also retained the damage table, resulting to two overlapping kill mechanics that similar units (i.e. MC's) don't have.

As a result, walkers and non-skimmer tanks are generally rather sub-par units that struggle to be competitive, and the skimmer/non-skimmer divide is back and as strong as it was in 4E.

The other result of HP's and the changing of the damage table is the perverse fact that big heavy anti-tank guns are often amongst the least effective anti-tank weapons. Having to rely on the damage table, even with an AP1 weapon, is usually much less effective than simply spamming lighter weapons to strip those HP's, and the HP stripping weapons can force more failed saves in the case of something like a Jinking skimmer. Volume of fire counts for way more than raw weapon power, and we get things like autocannons and missile pods proving to often be much more valuable anti-vehicle units than their dedicated AT counterparts. Weapons like Railguns and Vanquisher cannons are relatively pathetic in regards to actually destroying enemy armor for their investment. A trio of Lascannon sentinels are going to generally result in kills faster than a heavy dediated anti-tank unit like a Vanquisher through sheer volume of fire.

Likewise, the addition of HP's and changes to vehicle CC make tanks absurdly easy to kill in CC. 10 krak grenades will, even with below average rolling, kill 95% of vehicles in the game in a single round of combat. The vehicle really has no defense, they're hit on 3's no matter how fast they moved or if they jinked or anything else, don't get Overwatch, and are automatically hit on rear armor. Coupled with the HP system means that it's trivially easy for most basic troops to kill any vehicle in one round of combat, be it a heavy battle tank or a weeny transport, and do so largely without any risk to themselves or any sort of defensive measures possible on the part of the vehicle.

Additionally, with HP's, the dramatic expansion in availability and type of weapons that ignore AV (Haywire, Gauss, Grav, etc) make it often trivially easy to strip HP's from even heavily armored vehicles. An AV14 Leman Russ looks tough, but when it's only got 3 "wounds" and a Skitarii unit with 3 rapid-fire Haywire guns is sitting there hitting it on BS7 and "wounding" it on 2's (with no save), their staying power is rather limited.


At this point, the game really needs to either go back to a 5E style damage table and drop HP's altogether, or drop the damage table altogether and either increase the HP count of most vehicles or give them some sort of a save (though I think the latter would still leave the situation that big heavy anti-tank guns like Vanquisher cannons or Railguns are some of the least effective AT weapons).

 Vaktathi wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
I have always wondered this question and what others in the community think.

I don't believe they're a good mechanic.

They were a response to some issues in 5E, being that vehicle kill was highly variable. The real big issues was cheap transports that ignored 5/6 glancing hits and 1/2 penetrating hits. Nobody really complained about gun-tanks, any glancing or penetrating hit would generally shut them down for at least one full turn.

The problem is twofold. GW gave vehicles "wounds", but not saves which typically accompany wounds. They also retained the damage table, resulting to two overlapping kill mechanics that similar units (i.e. MC's) don't have.

As a result, walkers and non-skimmer tanks are generally rather sub-par units that struggle to be competitive, and the skimmer/non-skimmer divide is back and as strong as it was in 4E.

The other result of HP's and the changing of the damage table is the perverse fact that big heavy anti-tank guns are often amongst the least effective anti-tank weapons. Having to rely on the damage table, even with an AP1 weapon, is usually much less effective than simply spamming lighter weapons to strip those HP's, and the HP stripping weapons can force more failed saves in the case of something like a Jinking skimmer. Volume of fire counts for way more than raw weapon power, and we get things like autocannons and missile pods proving to often be much more valuable anti-vehicle units than their dedicated AT counterparts. Weapons like Railguns and Vanquisher cannons are relatively pathetic in regards to actually destroying enemy armor for their investment. A trio of Lascannon sentinels are going to generally result in kills faster than a heavy dediated anti-tank unit like a Vanquisher through sheer volume of fire.

Likewise, the addition of HP's and changes to vehicle CC make tanks absurdly easy to kill in CC. 10 krak grenades will, even with below average rolling, kill 95% of vehicles in the game in a single round of combat. The vehicle really has no defense, they're hit on 3's no matter how fast they moved or if they jinked or anything else, don't get Overwatch, and are automatically hit on rear armor. Coupled with the HP system means that it's trivially easy for most basic troops to kill any vehicle in one round of combat, be it a heavy battle tank or a weeny transport, and do so largely without any risk to themselves or any sort of defensive measures possible on the part of the vehicle.

Additionally, with HP's, the dramatic expansion in availability and type of weapons that ignore AV (Haywire, Gauss, Grav, etc) make it often trivially easy to strip HP's from even heavily armored vehicles. An AV14 Leman Russ looks tough, but when it's only got 3 "wounds" and a Skitarii unit with 3 rapid-fire Haywire guns is sitting there hitting it on BS7 and "wounding" it on 2's (with no save), their staying power is rather limited.


At this point, the game really needs to either go back to a 5E style damage table and drop HP's altogether, or drop the damage table altogether and either increase the HP count of most vehicles or give them some sort of a save (though I think the latter would still leave the situation that big heavy anti-tank guns like Vanquisher cannons or Railguns are some of the least effective AT weapons).

I dont disagree with this, hell we could go back to 4es damage chart and i would be happy, the SKimmer non Skimmer divide wouldnt be as bad anymore as Skimmers have Jink.

On the other side of thing you could keep HP but increase them on AV 14 vehicles and add some form of save. Generally vehicles do need a buff, Tanks needing to Snap Shoot after cruising is dumb, average Ordinance weapons not being able to pop vehicles is another problem. HPs are fixable, just the current set up is ridiculous.

God yes. The pre-5th edition Monoliths that couldn't be glanced to death still give me nightmares.

Without the HP, many vehicles were too damn ripped.

 Jimsolo wrote:
God yes. The pre-5th edition Monoliths that couldn't be glanced to death still give me nightmares.

Without the HP, many vehicles were too damn ripped.

And with them they are too damn weak.

I vote that we go back to 5th edition charts. Damn it but vehicles need to be able to survive something.

Like most everything else in the game. Good idea, poor implementation and synergy with the other rules of the game.

 master of ordinance wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
God yes. The pre-5th edition Monoliths that couldn't be glanced to death still give me nightmares.

Without the HP, many vehicles were too damn ripped.

And with them they are too damn weak.

I vote that we go back to 5th edition charts. Damn it but vehicles need to be able to survive something.

The problem is is that in 5e they where too durable. My Orks could only kill AV 14 with a PK Warboss, a lucky roll with a Warphead (unlikely), Tankbustas in melee (they would never make it), or with a Deff Dredd (which would die horribly and was overcosted). The Monolith was unkillable for an Ork, as where several other vehicles. No, i dont want the Parking Lot back, i still have nightmares about that.

 Jayden63 wrote:
Like most everything else in the game. Good idea, poor implementation and synergy with the other rules of the game.

Exalted for truth

Fourth ed damage charts.

Glancing hits needed a 6 to kill the tank. AP- could only glance, AP1 treated any damage roll that meet or beat the AV value as a penitrating hit.
Penitrating hits - 4+ kills the tank where a 6+ explodes the tank.

Yes, I had rhinos live all game long because my opponent couldnt roll over a 3 to save their life. Then again, I cant count the number of Landraiders one shotted by Tau Rail guns and melta weaponry.

I don't really think vehicles in 5E were too durable, I mean, even with a tank-horde IG list 15-18 tanks, I had games against relatively common armies where I'd lose nearly all of them. The tank killing power was definitely there (especially as *any* penetrating hit had a 1/3 kill chance). Running my CSM's, I could never count on my rhino's living past turn 2.

I think with toning down more of the cover to 5+ instead of 4+ the way we have now, and including some of the passneger effects (so that transports have to pay some sort of attention to non-kill/immobilize results), that'd fix most of 5E's issues.

 Jayden63 wrote:
Fourth ed damage charts.

Glancing hits needed a 6 to kill the tank. AP- could only glance, AP1 treated any damage roll that meet or beat the AV value as a penitrating hit.
Penitrating hits - 4+ kills the tank where a 6+ explodes the tank.

Yes, I had rhinos live all game long because my opponent couldnt roll over a 3 to save their life. Then again, I cant count the number of Landraiders one shotted by Tau Rail guns and melta weaponry.

The 4E chart made it wayyyy too easy to kill non-skimmer vehicles. Non-skimmer tanks were not particularly popular units.

I remember the first game I ever played with a Chimera, it died to infiltrating Alpha Legion bolter fire on the first turn of the game

 Grimmor wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
God yes. The pre-5th edition Monoliths that couldn't be glanced to death still give me nightmares.

Without the HP, many vehicles were too damn ripped.

And with them they are too damn weak.

I vote that we go back to 5th edition charts. Damn it but vehicles need to be able to survive something.

The problem is is that in 5e they where too durable. My Orks could only kill AV 14 with a PK Warboss, a lucky roll with a Warphead (unlikely), Tankbustas in melee (they would never make it), or with a Deff Dredd (which would die horribly and was overcosted). The Monolith was unkillable for an Ork, as where several other vehicles. No, i dont want the Parking Lot back, i still have nightmares about that.

 Jayden63 wrote:
Like most everything else in the game. Good idea, poor implementation and synergy with the other rules of the game.

Exalted for truth

But will the parking lot return? The game has become far more mobile in the days since then and even the traditionally static armies have been forced to become mobile.

Also AV14 all round vehicles are like the boogeyman - yes they are insanely hard to kill and all struggle with them but there are only two in the entire game. All the others are more than vulnerable to assault.

Parking lot = table full of tanks.

Martel732 wrote:
Parking lot = table full of tanks.

= Awesome to look at.


But seriously, the problem is not just hull points. Its how they work with the current rules for vehicle damage and vehicles in assault. If you change one thing, you need to change them all to make it work. The idea that a single gun can remove two hull points in a single shot doesn't help the situation.

Martel732 wrote:
Parking lot = table full of tanks.

This, my Orks have fought Mechanized SM and Armored Fist Guard. I could beat the guard because it was Chimeras and a Loota can reasonably wreck those, the Leman Russ' where the main issue, however he only had 2 at the time. The SM didnt care about their Rhinos and the Vindies he spammed where a pain, as he could 1 shot my Warboss, then add the SM that where inside and it was a nightmare. Stupid Scout Rhinos....

I don't like hull points as a mechanic, but 40K is so bloated right now, there's no easy fix. There's too many high Strength, low AP weapons; too many haywire plaforms; too many units with krak grenades hitting rear armor; too many flying MCs; the list goes on and on. Start fixing one thing, you bork something else in the process.

So yeah, hull points are dumb, but it's on a long list of dumb stuff in 40K right now.

Poll needs a 'Yes... ish' option.

Hull points would have been fine, if they had come hand-in-hand with saving throws.

At which point, there seems little point in maintaining a separate damage system for vehicles... better to just make them MCs and move on, in my book.

I'm fine with them in theory but vehicles need more of them to make up for the lack of save and melee ability compared to MC. Lighter Vehicles such as a Truck, Rhino or Raider are ok at three. But Predators, LR, HammerHeads, etc should have 5 to 7.

Saving throws WOULD be delightful for vehicles. I'd like to see the system be something other than giving all vehicles 3+ saves (otherwise what's the point of Jink?) but some kind of save system would be well within reason.

The problem with the Monoliths wasn't omni-14. It was being immune to being glanced to death, having Ceramite Plating on steroids, AND omni-14.

I have only picked up Dark Eldar since Hull Points became a thing, and I shudder to think about how awful it would be to play them if you couldn't plink a vehicle to death. They struggle enough as it is.

I like them because when I played way back when in 3rd or 4th (The Eye of Terror and War Machine were just coming out towards the tail end of my time in the game) it always felt like vehicles were massively variable in how good they were. By which I mean sometimes they just exploded to easily, or just couldn't be killed but immobilized so many times it wasn't even funny. So for me the fact that hull points give some consistency to the game is a pretty cool thing, as you can better figure out when you'll kill a tank as opposed to how many times can you shake, stun, or whatever it before you simply stop caring.

That being said, I do understand the concerns some people have, and I can see giving them saves as one solution, but what about just making them cheaper now that they're weaker? I mean wouldn't that encourage people to take more of them as they have strong weapons, and it would sell more models, while also giving you games where you get to see more tanks and troops chilling on the table. Also, isn't that what they kind of did with Space Marines where you can get free tanks in some situations, or am I making that up?

But yea, it would be cool to see them stay as sort of fragile gun platforms, but also giving them a point reduction while also maybe tweaking the power of grenades and such so they aren't quite as effective. After all, if they made the Hammer Head a 95 point model, I'd play it a hell of a lot more.

 Jimsolo wrote:


I have only picked up Dark Eldar since Hull Points became a thing, and I shudder to think about how awful it would be to play them if you couldn't plink a vehicle to death. They struggle enough as it is.

DE wouldnt (and in fact didn't) have issues with vehicles against the older damage charts. 4+ to destroy on penitrating hits 6+ on glances. DE have always had tons of S8 and haywire shooting to get the anti-tank job done.

 Jayden63 wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:


I have only picked up Dark Eldar since Hull Points became a thing, and I shudder to think about how awful it would be to play them if you couldn't plink a vehicle to death. They struggle enough as it is.

DE wouldnt (and in fact didn't) have issues with vehicles against the older damage charts. 4+ to destroy on penitrating hits 6+ on glances. DE have always had tons of S8 and haywire shooting to get the anti-tank job done.

Oh yeah...'cuz of the extinct 'Wrecked' result. Very well...statement of shudderage withdrawn.

lol in 5th DE lances made my heavier tanks cry. My big issue is that vehicles are much more fragile than MC, but the cost isn't always adjusted to account for that

I agree with the yes-ish. 5th edition parking lots and castles was one of the most boring incarnations of 40k, imo. Melta and ap 1 is too strong, perhaps. The real problem is that they started handing out haywire/grav weaponry like it was candy. Even high str and low ap wouldn't be so bad if not for the disgusting amount of haywire/grav weaponry/melta/ap1. Also, they could balance it a bit further by making close combat attacks striking from the front of the vehicle target the side, those striking at the side target the rear or something. Automatically striking rear armor is also a bit silly.

So, hull points in theory, but, yes, we all know it could use some balancing.

I'd just go all the way and take away front, side and rear facings. Give them a toughness and wounds with a save and maybe a 3d6 attacks or over watch to represent them trying to run over the horde of ork's trying to chop them to death. Make them type vehicle and give AP 1 a re-roll to wound against them.

Believe it or not, I feel that Hull Points are a good thing. Previously, any tank could be one-shotted through glancing hits. Now you need an AP2 or better weapon. I feel it has only made vehicles more durable than previously (disclaimer: I came in with 6th edition and haven't played anything previous)

The problem is that the Hull Point system has shifted the emphasis to medium-strength high rof weapons to glance vehicles to death. The solution is not to make vehicles cheaper, as most are already significantly cheaper than an MC. Giving vehicles saves wouldn't work either, as it would turn them into undercosted MCs. The solution would be to reform the damage tables instead.

Glances should not remove Hull Points but force the enemy to fire snap shots. Penetrating Hits remove Hull Points and roll on the damage table, with an Explodes! being on a six or higher. AP2 and AP1 modifiers remain the same.

I am also going with yes-ish. Good(ish) idea, terrible execution.

 TheNewBlood wrote:
Believe it or not, I feel that Hull Points are a good thing. Previously, any tank could be one-shotted through glancing hits. Now you need an AP2 or better weapon. I feel it has only made vehicles more durable than previously (disclaimer: I came in with 6th edition and haven't played anything previous)

Basically, in 5E, before hull points, you just had the vehicle damage table. Basically the same as it is now except you rolled on it on glances and all penetrating hits got shifted up by 2 (so 5+ killed much like AP1 does now) and AP1 gave a +1 (but not AP2) as did being Open Topped.

TL;DR instead of HP's you rolled on the damage chart for glances, and all pen's were like AP1 is now.

So, you could stunlock a tank with glancing hits and prevent it from doing anything, but couldn't kill it (without stripping off all its guns and immobilizing it), you needed penetrating hits to kill the thing, sometimes just one would do and other times you needed a lot, but the *average* number of shots you needed to kill a tank was about twice what it is now, but any glance would also prevent them from firing.

Hull points are terrible. IMO what they should do is similar to space combat games with vectors of attack. IE within a certain angle of the front, anything that penns hits a certain critical system. If enough critical systems are destroyed, the vehicle is removed from play.

Vaktathi wrote:

 TheNewBlood wrote:
Believe it or not, I feel that Hull Points are a good thing. Previously, any tank could be one-shotted through glancing hits. Now you need an AP2 or better weapon. I feel it has only made vehicles more durable than previously (disclaimer: I came in with 6th edition and haven't played anything previous)

Basically, in 5E, before hull points, you just had the vehicle damage table. Basically the same as it is now except you rolled on it on glances and all penetrating hits got shifted up by 2 (so 5+ killed much like AP1 does now) and AP1 gave a +1 (but not AP2) as did being Open Topped.

TL;DR instead of HP's you rolled on the damage chart for glances, and all pen's were like AP1 is now.

So, you could stunlock a tank with glancing hits and prevent it from doing anything, but couldn't kill it (without stripping off all its guns and immobilizing it), you needed penetrating hits to kill the thing, sometimes just one would do and other times you needed a lot, but the *average* number of shots you needed to kill a tank was about twice what it is now, but any glance would also prevent them from firing.

Okay, now I understand. It's not just the glancing mechanic, it's the terrible damage chart. Vehicles being twice as durable? No thank you. I wondered why 5th was sometimes call parking lot edition, and I can see why. There needs to be some sort of happy medium between MCs being better than vehicles and the game turning into nothing but vehicles.

Wyzilla wrote:Hull points are terrible. IMO what they should do is similar to space combat games with vectors of attack. IE within a certain angle of the front, anything that penns hits a certain critical system. If enough critical systems are destroyed, the vehicle is removed from play.

The problem comes in when you compare vehicles to MCs. Do MCs get weaker as they take wounds? No, they keep fighting until they're dead, which is how it should be. There needs to be some sort of "wounds" mechanic for vehicles, as 40k is based around dealing wounds.

I do agree that penetrating hits should be reworked to make them more lethal vs. chipping away hull points. You should still be able to disable a vehicle by immobilizing it, as well as a chance to instakill, but it needs to reward high-strength low-AP weapons. If you nullify glances with the current system, vehicles suddenly needs too much firepower to take them out effectively. I would rework the damage table to only allow penetrating hits to roll on it, with the following changes: 1=Crew Stunned, 2-3=Weapon Destroyed 4-5=Immobilized 6=Explodes, and keep the current AP1 and AP2 modifiers.

I'd like it if hull points "lost" were just added to the result of the damage table, so a vehicle that has taken 1 hull point of damage adds +1, a vehicle that has taken 5 hull points of damage adds +5, and can in this way take theoretically infinite damage (until it meets the "destroyed" threshold)

Combo'd with this idea is giving vehicles different thresholds at which they would take certain results. Say an Ork Trukk is Shaken on a 1, Stunned on a 2, Weapon Destroyed on a 3, Immobilized on a 4-6, and Explodes on a 7+ (throwing out a random example)
A Rhino might be Shaken on a 1-2, Stunned on a 3, Weapon Destroyed on 3-4, Immobilized on a 5-6, and Explode on a 7+.
An Imperial Knight could Explode on a 12+.

Rihgu wrote:
I'd like it if hull points "lost" were just added to the result of the damage table, so a vehicle that has taken 1 hull point of damage adds +1, a vehicle that has taken 5 hull points of damage adds +5, and can in this way take theoretically infinite damage (until it meets the "destroyed" threshold)

Combo'd with this idea is giving vehicles different thresholds at which they would take certain results. Say an Ork Trukk is Shaken on a 1, Stunned on a 2, Weapon Destroyed on a 3, Immobilized on a 4-6, and Explodes on a 7+ (throwing out a random example)
A Rhino might be Shaken on a 1-2, Stunned on a 3, Weapon Destroyed on 3-4, Immobilized on a 5-6, and Explode on a 7+.
An Imperial Knight could Explode on a 12+.

I second this, as it's a much better idea than I though of and the best one I've seen thus far. Some sort of chart instead of a table to calculate how much damage a vahicle has taken and its effect, while keepin some kind of "wounds" mechanic in place.

 TheNewBlood wrote:

Vaktathi wrote:

 TheNewBlood wrote:
Believe it or not, I feel that Hull Points are a good thing. Previously, any tank could be one-shotted through glancing hits. Now you need an AP2 or better weapon. I feel it has only made vehicles more durable than previously (disclaimer: I came in with 6th edition and haven't played anything previous)

Basically, in 5E, before hull points, you just had the vehicle damage table. Basically the same as it is now except you rolled on it on glances and all penetrating hits got shifted up by 2 (so 5+ killed much like AP1 does now) and AP1 gave a +1 (but not AP2) as did being Open Topped.

TL;DR instead of HP's you rolled on the damage chart for glances, and all pen's were like AP1 is now.

So, you could stunlock a tank with glancing hits and prevent it from doing anything, but couldn't kill it (without stripping off all its guns and immobilizing it), you needed penetrating hits to kill the thing, sometimes just one would do and other times you needed a lot, but the *average* number of shots you needed to kill a tank was about twice what it is now, but any glance would also prevent them from firing.

Okay, now I understand. It's not just the glancing mechanic, it's the terrible damage chart. Vehicles being twice as durable? No thank you. I wondered why 5th was sometimes call parking lot edition, and I can see why. There needs to be some sort of happy medium between MCs being better than vehicles and the game turning into nothing but vehicles.

As I said, this was balanced out by the fact that any glancing hit would either keep them from shooting (no shapshots back then), or blow off a gun or immobilize them, and things like meltaguns killed on 4's not just 5's. Also, again, nobody ever seemed to have a problem with gun tanks, you never heard about how Hammerheads, Russ tanks, Predators, Hellhounds, Fire Prisms, etc were too hard to deal with (and in fact, . Most of the complaints could be traced to the 35pt Rhino that only cared about Immobilized and Destroyed results and ignored everything else.

Rihgu wrote:
I'd like it if hull points "lost" were just added to the result of the damage table, so a vehicle that has taken 1 hull point of damage adds +1, a vehicle that has taken 5 hull points of damage adds +5, and can in this way take theoretically infinite damage (until it meets the "destroyed" threshold)

Combo'd with this idea is giving vehicles different thresholds at which they would take certain results. Say an Ork Trukk is Shaken on a 1, Stunned on a 2, Weapon Destroyed on a 3, Immobilized on a 4-6, and Explodes on a 7+ (throwing out a random example)
A Rhino might be Shaken on a 1-2, Stunned on a 3, Weapon Destroyed on 3-4, Immobilized on a 5-6, and Explode on a 7+.
An Imperial Knight could Explode on a 12+.

So I understand that is just an idea about the Ork Trukk....but you literally just made the transport USELESS with 1/2 the rolls.

in hindsight that is basically how it is now anyway. Since everything in this game can pen this vehicle and its open topped....

 Ghazkuul wrote:

Rihgu wrote:
I'd like it if hull points "lost" were just added to the result of the damage table, so a vehicle that has taken 1 hull point of damage adds +1, a vehicle that has taken 5 hull points of damage adds +5, and can in this way take theoretically infinite damage (until it meets the "destroyed" threshold)

Combo'd with this idea is giving vehicles different thresholds at which they would take certain results. Say an Ork Trukk is Shaken on a 1, Stunned on a 2, Weapon Destroyed on a 3, Immobilized on a 4-6, and Explodes on a 7+ (throwing out a random example)
A Rhino might be Shaken on a 1-2, Stunned on a 3, Weapon Destroyed on 3-4, Immobilized on a 5-6, and Explode on a 7+.
An Imperial Knight could Explode on a 12+.

So I understand that is just an idea about the Ork Trukk....but you literally just made the transport USELESS with 1/2 the rolls.

in hindsight that is basically how it is now anyway. Since everything in this game can pen this vehicle and its open topped....

To be fair, it also usually only needs to exist for one turn

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:

Rihgu wrote:
I'd like it if hull points "lost" were just added to the result of the damage table, so a vehicle that has taken 1 hull point of damage adds +1, a vehicle that has taken 5 hull points of damage adds +5, and can in this way take theoretically infinite damage (until it meets the "destroyed" threshold)

Combo'd with this idea is giving vehicles different thresholds at which they would take certain results. Say an Ork Trukk is Shaken on a 1, Stunned on a 2, Weapon Destroyed on a 3, Immobilized on a 4-6, and Explodes on a 7+ (throwing out a random example)
A Rhino might be Shaken on a 1-2, Stunned on a 3, Weapon Destroyed on 3-4, Immobilized on a 5-6, and Explode on a 7+.
An Imperial Knight could Explode on a 12+.

So I understand that is just an idea about the Ork Trukk....but you literally just made the transport USELESS with 1/2 the rolls.

in hindsight that is basically how it is now anyway. Since everything in this game can pen this vehicle and its open topped....

To be fair, it also usually only needs to exist for one turn

True one of the reasons I hate how the game is set up. If I don't get first turn I tend to lose my trukkz and some of my Multiple threats are now foot sloggin

If transports are an issue, why not just make them have a lot more hull points or armour when compared to weapon based tanks that can't transport? Fluff wise it makes sense as they'd probably fortify transport vehicles more, and the lack of having to have weapon systems means they have more room for plating and such.

Though again, I think it's just better to make vehicles cheaper as a whole than to change what we have exactly. Heck, strip the weapons of transports to a minimum and give them double the hull points, make them mobile fortifications basically that provide people with what's in theory tactical, but destructible terrain.

 Tinkrr wrote:
If transports are an issue, why not just make them have a lot more hull points or armour when compared to weapon based tanks that can't transport? Fluff wise it makes sense as they'd probably fortify transport vehicles more, and the lack of having to have weapon systems means they have more room for plating and such.

Though again, I think it's just better to make vehicles cheaper as a whole than to change what we have exactly. Heck, strip the weapons of transports to a minimum and give them double the hull points, make them mobile fortifications basically that provide people with what's in theory tactical, but destructible terrain.

take 2 seconds and think about what you just said. Which do you think has more armor. An M1A1 main battle tank or a LAV/AMTRACK/Other personnel carrier?

I'll give you a hint, its the one with the 120mm cannon on a turret up top.

 Tinkrr wrote:
If transports are an issue, why not just make them have a lot more hull points or armour when compared to weapon based tanks that can't transport? Fluff wise it makes sense as they'd probably fortify transport vehicles more, and the lack of having to have weapon systems means they have more room for plating and such.

Throughout the history of armoured warfare APC's/Transports have always had considerably less armour than battle tanks. Just look at the weight difference between the US army's Abrams vs the Bradley.

On topic: I play guard so naturally I think HP system is stupid.

Guys, I'm talking about game play, not historical or realistic measures. Sometimes you have to make new fluff for the good of mechanics, as opposed to what makes sense in our historical context.

That being said, what's more likely to be in range of enemy fire, and suffer the most from being blown up, a weapons platform that can sit back and fire, or a transport full of troops which is intended to move them forward onto objectives? So yea, think of it as less of a comparison between tanks, and more of a comparison between a car and an armoured truck, because while that Lascannon is important, that Space Marine Armour costs a lot more probably. Granted, this isn't the case for Orks and Cadians...

 Tinkrr wrote:

That being said, what's more likely to be in range of enemy fire, and suffer the most from being blown up, a weapons platform that can sit back and fire, or a transport full of troops which is intended to move them forward onto objectives?

That would make sense if those are the roles that tanks and APCs are designed for, however they aren't. Tanks are designed to spearhead a breakthrough, APCs were invented when it became apparent that the supporting infantry which is vital to armoured warfare was being left behind by faster tanks, they needed a bulletproof ride to keep up.

MarsNZ wrote:

 Tinkrr wrote:

That being said, what's more likely to be in range of enemy fire, and suffer the most from being blown up, a weapons platform that can sit back and fire, or a transport full of troops which is intended to move them forward onto objectives?

That would make sense if those are the roles that tanks and APCs are designed for, however they aren't. Tanks are designed to spearhead a breakthrough, APCs were invented when it became apparent that the supporting infantry which is vital to armoured warfare was being left behind by faster tanks, they needed a bulletproof ride to keep up.

And in the future when we have advanced technology the infantry can use some chest high walls to use as cover too, especially when they're built into their transport

the problem your running into is your trying to make sense. In a future where starships have the power to Destroy planets they haven't figured out an accurate way of utilizing planetary bombardment to make having land armies useless. So.......yeah

 Ghazkuul wrote:
the problem your running into is your trying to make sense. In a future where starships have the power to Destroy planets they haven't figured out an accurate way of utilizing planetary bombardment to make having land armies useless. So.......yeah

Well no, I'm not trying to make sense, I'm just saying you could find ways to justify it by fluff.

What I am saying though, is in terms of game mechanics, if it's a problem there's a way to solve it without having to rework the system as a whole. I like the Hull Point system, it gives a lot of certainty to how and when you can kill a tank, compared to when I played back in the day. However, I also understand the faults with it, and would like to a see a solution in the form of reduced tank costs across the board, and giving transports a lot more strength in terms of survival (while nerfing their weapons so they function as tactical and mobile terrain that can be destroyed, while boosting your troop's speed) such that it makes the game more interesting in a none random way.

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:

Rihgu wrote:
I'd like it if hull points "lost" were just added to the result of the damage table, so a vehicle that has taken 1 hull point of damage adds +1, a vehicle that has taken 5 hull points of damage adds +5, and can in this way take theoretically infinite damage (until it meets the "destroyed" threshold)

Combo'd with this idea is giving vehicles different thresholds at which they would take certain results. Say an Ork Trukk is Shaken on a 1, Stunned on a 2, Weapon Destroyed on a 3, Immobilized on a 4-6, and Explodes on a 7+ (throwing out a random example)
A Rhino might be Shaken on a 1-2, Stunned on a 3, Weapon Destroyed on 3-4, Immobilized on a 5-6, and Explode on a 7+.
An Imperial Knight could Explode on a 12+.

So I understand that is just an idea about the Ork Trukk....but you literally just made the transport USELESS with 1/2 the rolls.

in hindsight that is basically how it is now anyway. Since everything in this game can pen this vehicle and its open topped....

To be fair, it also usually only needs to exist for one turn

True one of the reasons I hate how the game is set up. If I don't get first turn I tend to lose my trukkz and some of my Multiple threats are now foot sloggin

Aye, orks tend to be very binary, either they get the first turn and lose all of their transports and get pooched, or they get first turn and have their entire army at the opponent's deployment zone by the end of their first turn and everything gets stuck into everything turn 2.

What about giving weapons a default glance / pen roll e.g. roll to hit, if you hit then an ap1 weapon glances on a 3 and pens on a 4+, ap2 weapon glances on a 5 and pens on a 6?

And don't start screaming that I am trying to AoS the damn game, just a suggestion.

If there are MCs with 6 wounds, there should be vehicles with 6 HP as well (not only S-H). MCs need a table akin to vehicles too

 Vector Strike wrote:
If there are MCs with 6 wounds, there should be vehicles with 6 HP as well (not only S-H). MCs need a table akin to vehicles too

the problem is if you hit a MC with a lascannon and roll a lucky 6 to wound it doesn't just die regardless of how many wounds you have left.

that is why wounds are better then hull points

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 Vector Strike wrote:
If there are MCs with 6 wounds, there should be vehicles with 6 HP as well (not only S-H). MCs need a table akin to vehicles too

the problem is if you hit a MC with a lascannon and roll a lucky 6 to wound it doesn't just die regardless of how many wounds you have left.

that is why wounds are better then hull points

You can hit a MC with an instant death attack and it will die, the vehicle will not. This comparison does not make any sense.

Hull points are fine. Basic tanks should have 4 starting hull points though, with an optional vehicle upgrade that would add a hull point (new rule for extra armor?). Land raider should have 5 initial HP and go to 6 with an upgrade.

topaxygouroun i wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 Vector Strike wrote:
If there are MCs with 6 wounds, there should be vehicles with 6 HP as well (not only S-H). MCs need a table akin to vehicles too

the problem is if you hit a MC with a lascannon and roll a lucky 6 to wound it doesn't just die regardless of how many wounds you have left.

that is why wounds are better then hull points

You can hit a MC with an instant death attack and it will die, the vehicle will not. This comparison does not make any sense.

Hull points are fine. Basic tanks should have 4 starting hull points though, with an optional vehicle upgrade that would add a hull point (new rule for extra armor?). Land raider should have 5 initial HP and go to 6 with an upgrade.

And just how many ID weapons are there in the game? Remind me again, because I can not remember the last time I saw one outside of a Grey Knight army.

Hull points are anything but fine. They essentially take a vehicle and make it into an MC that does not get saves and can still be instagibbed by many weapons in the game (Lascannon, Melta, etc). They render vehicles useless.

Beat me to it

Basically how many "Instant Death" weapons are in the game compared to Lascannons, Melta, Haywire, Gause, Plasma, Melta Bombs, and the plethora of other High strength low AP stuff I didn't bother to mention because to long.

topaxygouroun i wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 Vector Strike wrote:
If there are MCs with 6 wounds, there should be vehicles with 6 HP as well (not only S-H). MCs need a table akin to vehicles too

the problem is if you hit a MC with a lascannon and roll a lucky 6 to wound it doesn't just die regardless of how many wounds you have left.

that is why wounds are better then hull points

You can hit a MC with an instant death attack and it will die, the vehicle will not. This comparison does not make any sense.

Hull points are fine. Basic tanks should have 4 starting hull points though, with an optional vehicle upgrade that would add a hull point (new rule for extra armor?). Land raider should have 5 initial HP and go to 6 with an upgrade.

I could get behind 4 points on a rhino/Dreadnought and 3 on a land speeder. Also, give basic Dreadnoughts a 5++. I'll start taking squads of 3.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
Beat me to it

Basically how many "Instant Death" weapons are in the game compared to Lascannons, Melta, Haywire, Gause, Plasma, Melta Bombs, and the plethora of other High strength low AP stuff I didn't bother to mention because to long.

Well, before 7th how many D-Weapons, Superheavies and GMCs were there?

I feel the issue comes from the sales and modeling department pushing out new rules and units, and leaving the game design team to manage the mess.

Yoyoyo wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
Beat me to it

Basically how many "Instant Death" weapons are in the game compared to Lascannons, Melta, Haywire, Gause, Plasma, Melta Bombs, and the plethora of other High strength low AP stuff I didn't bother to mention because to long.

Well, before 7th how many D-Weapons, Superheavies and GMCs were there?

I feel the issue comes from the sales and modeling department pushing out new rules and units, and leaving the game design team to manage the mess.

Yeah i agree, except the design team isn't managing they have given up all hope and are going to turn SM Captains into MC next edition and dreads into GC

 master of ordinance wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 Vector Strike wrote:
If there are MCs with 6 wounds, there should be vehicles with 6 HP as well (not only S-H). MCs need a table akin to vehicles too

the problem is if you hit a MC with a lascannon and roll a lucky 6 to wound it doesn't just die regardless of how many wounds you have left.

that is why wounds are better then hull points

You can hit a MC with an instant death attack and it will die, the vehicle will not. This comparison does not make any sense.

Hull points are fine. Basic tanks should have 4 starting hull points though, with an optional vehicle upgrade that would add a hull point (new rule for extra armor?). Land raider should have 5 initial HP and go to 6 with an upgrade.

And just how many ID weapons are there in the game? Remind me again, because I can not remember the last time I saw one outside of a Grey Knight army.

Hull points are anything but fine. They essentially take a vehicle and make it into an MC that does not get saves and can still be instagibbed by many weapons in the game (Lascannon, Melta, etc). They render vehicles useless.

All force weapons are ID, meaning all psykers can ID. Tyranids have a lot of ID weapons ranging from boneswords to implant attacks. Demons have a couple of different ones. Other armies might also have them, I am not familiar with them. From memory there should be an elder sniper special character with instant death methinks.

Removing the hull points would make vehicles such a powerhouse that it would be stupid. Tyranids for example would have zero ways to actually kill a transport from range, and even at melee it would take a MC and possibly smash which is 1 attack only. A rhino for 35 pts without hull points. Yeah, no. Hell no. Vehicles are not useless. They are way more cheap than MCs, they can shoot multiple weapons, MC's can only shoot 2. They cannot get locked in combat, cannot get cornered (they just tank shock), their armor equivalent is ridiculously high (AV 10 is the equivalent of Toughness 6, av 13 is the equivalent of Toughness 9, this is ridiculous), they can transport troops etc etc. Any direct comparison between MC's and vehicles would be stupid, they are not the same units, they have different roles. Should vehicles have a better damage table? Yes (ie nothing happens in 1-4, 5 is crew stunned, 6 is weapon destroyed, 7 is immobilized, 8 is destroyed). Should they have more hull points? Yes, 1 hull point more base on every vehicle would upgrade their survivability by 25%. Should we remove the hull points altogether? No way.

I have played for many years with both MC's (tyranids) and vehicles (mecha CSM) and in each army I would like to have a little bit of the other as well. CSM do have DP's though, tyranids get screwed

I do like Hull Points as a concept.

However however however, as it's already been pointed out several times already in this very thread, their current implementation leaves a lot to be desired, and blatantly makes non-skimmer vehicles inferior to MCs by default.

I voted yes in the poll but in order to work the HP system would need serious tweaking. I'd go readjusting the HP values of all vehicles in the game, in order to make them much more durable against spammable weapons currently able to glance them to death. Perhaps doubling or even tripling them. Penetrating hits should then be more rewarding though, maybe dropping two HPs automatically.

I like Hull Points. but the system doesn't work well and nothing they have tried has.

I'd keep Hull Points but change the the damage table to allow a 6 result to destroy again. To change the easy wreck in assaults I'd return to the use the AV of the facing not the rear no matter where you assualt from. I'd also bring back defensive weapons and allow snap firing on assaults, as long as they can draw LOS with that weapon.

6th Edition was horrible, but 7th has fixed a lot of my gripes about how Hull Points were implemented. There is still substantial room for improvement.

My ideas along this front are:

1) Increase the Hull points of most units in the game by 2-3.
2) Explodes! Result removes an additional Hull Point. If the vehicle has no Hull Points left, it explodes. Otherwise, it remains in play.
3) All Vehicles given a 3+ Armor Save by default.
4) Vehicles are WS 3 in melee as long as they are not immobile. Fast and Skimmer types add 1 to the effective WS. So a Fast Skimmer would be WS5.
5) Allow all vehicles to target multiple units with different weapon mounts.

I think these changes would make vehicles more survivable, similar to their MC cousins, while encouraging more heavy weapons like Melta and AP1 to be used against them. It would also even the playing field a bit, since a Melta Gun can kill a tank in one shot, but can't kill a MC in one shot.

At the same time, it doesn't go back completely to the Parking Lot days of 5th Edition, where vehicles could never be destroyed because of unlucky damage chart rolling.

Allowing vehicles to attack multiple units is something I've thought should be in the game for a long time. It just doesn't make sense to me that a gunner in a sponson has to shoot at the same thing as the main turret. Giving vehicles the ability to attack multiple targets would give them an advantage that MC don't have. This is more of a "Wish List" item than a real balance change though. It's probably unrealistic and not plausible though. You'd have to spend too much time in every vehicle's description saying what mounts it had, which upgrades were put in which mounts, etc... even though I think it'd be obvious on most of the models.

Yay but it could be done better.
I would love it if multi wound models got similar rules -> random critical dmg tables modified by wepon type, s or ap + wounds as normal. I want to be able to shoot and hack body parts off heroes and monsters and kill them with a very lucky sniper shot.

The thing that really bothers me is cover saves. It just makes no sense at all that monsters and vehicles have such radical different cover rules and that cover + armour doesn't stack at all. I wish they changed cover back to to hit modifiers with +penalties for HUGE things like monsters vehicles and super heavies / gargantuans.

And the walker / monster thing. If it is a construct -> tau suits, ork can, eldar wratith night etc it should be a vehicle. If it is a monster with organs etc it should be a monster. I

oldzoggy wrote:
Yay but it could be done better.
I would love it if multi wound models got similar rules -> critical dmg tables aside from wounds.
The thing that really bothers me is cover saves. It just makes no sense at all that monsters and vehicles have such radical different cover rules and that cover + armour doesn't stack at all. I wish they changed cover back to to hit modifiers with +penalties for HUGE things like monsters vehicles and super heavies / gargantuans.

The problem with using cover as a hit penalty in the game is the D6 system doesn't have enough variability.

There are effectively 3 ballistic skills in the game... 4, 3, and 2. MOST units are 4 or 3. If you change cover to a penalty system, all your BS4 troops are now shooting at effectively BS3 or BS2 depending on how much the modifier is. Your BS3 troops are shooting at BS2 or BS1. Orks are basically always going to be firing snap-shots.

What you'd end up with would be Warhammer Fantasy. Shooting would be mostly an afterthought except for maybe the Elves. All the action would take place in Assault. That's fine for a game like Warhammer Fantasy, where you WANT the action taking place between your big blocks of troops, but it doesn't really suit 40k very well.

I agree Monstrous Creatures get cover too easily in the game. It especially bugs me that Flying Monstrous Creatures can claim a cover save by having a toe in ruins.

Murrdox wrote:

1) Increase the Hull points of most units in the game by 2-3.
2) Explodes! Result removes an additional Hull Point. If the vehicle has no Hull Points left, it explodes. Otherwise, it remains in play.
3) All Vehicles given a 3+ Armor Save by default.
4) Vehicles are WS 3 in melee as long as they are not immobile. Fast and Skimmer types add 1 to the effective WS. So a Fast Skimmer would be WS5.
5) Allow all vehicles to target multiple units with different weapon mounts.

I will agree on this if the Rhino goes to 90 pts, naked Predators go to 160 and Land raiders go to 320 points. Otherwise, no freaking way. People always forget that Vehicles are waaaaaay cheaper than MC's. And you want to have a 35 pt Rhino have the same survivability as a 190 pt Tervigon (6 wounds/hull points, 3+ armor, T6/AV10). Seriously? Do people even think before they post?

" waaaaaay cheaper than MC"

Not for what MCs get.

Martel732 wrote:
" waaaaaay cheaper than MC"

Not for what MCs get.

And what is it that MC's get? (I know this will be a lost cause conversation because comparing MC's to vehicles is useless as they fit different roles, but let's hear it anyways.

After your opinion, please tell me how paying 35 pts for 5-6 hull points, 3+ armor, no exploding transport that doesn't cost a slot is even remotely justified. Because that's the profile Murrdox suggested.

The solution for vehicles is to turn them into MCs.

Change the name of MC to something like 'construct', with two USRs being either mechanical or biological. Biological gets affected by weapons that currently do well against MCs, and Mechanical gets affected by weapons that currently do well against vehicles.

One mechanic now governs all large things, which makes the game easier to learn, manage, and remember, as well as balance. It also helps fix the nonsense like Riptides and Dreadknights that are very clearly mechanical in nature but affected by poison instead of haywire.

topaxygouroun i wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
" waaaaaay cheaper than MC"

Not for what MCs get.

And what is it that MC's get? (I know this will be a lost cause conversation because comparing MC's to vehicles is useless as they fit different roles, but let's hear it anyways.

After your opinion, please tell me how paying 35 pts for 5-6 hull points, 3+ armor, no exploding transport that doesn't cost a slot is even remotely justified. Because that's the profile Murrdox suggested.

I'm not supporting that. What I'm saying is that as it exists right now, non-skimmer vehicles are overcosted across the board. MCs can't be one shotted, can't get immobilized, are hellacious in HTH, and get armor saves.

Here is what we basically came up with:

Front AV 10-AV 11: +1 HP
Front AV 12, AV 13:+2 HP
Front AV 14: +3 HP
Walkers: Just get x2 ignoring the Armor Bonus
Chariots: Just add their Hull Points to the Character's Wounds.
Extra Armor: Adds +1 Hull Point
Or
Front AV 10: 6+
Front AV 11: 5+
Front AV 12: 4+
Front AV 13: 3+
Front AV 14: 2+

Just make vehicles their own Toughness and give them a save and hit points. Then we'd have one unified mechanic. Go ahead and then make a "vehicle" subtype that has its own special rules (like a bike or an MC or a beast). So much easier.

Martel732 wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
" waaaaaay cheaper than MC"

Not for what MCs get.

And what is it that MC's get? (I know this will be a lost cause conversation because comparing MC's to vehicles is useless as they fit different roles, but let's hear it anyways.

After your opinion, please tell me how paying 35 pts for 5-6 hull points, 3+ armor, no exploding transport that doesn't cost a slot is even remotely justified. Because that's the profile Murrdox suggested.

I'm not supporting that. What I'm saying is that as it exists right now, non-skimmer vehicles are overcosted across the board. MCs can't be one shotted, can't get immobilized, are hellacious in HTH, and get armor saves.

Vehicles should get 1 more hull point, a slightly more forgiving damage table and maybe reworked repair (ie Restore 1 hull point if you forgo movement, restore d3 hull points if you forgo movement and shooting). But no much more than that. Any kind of vehicle/walker with more than 4 hull points would be just too durable for the game. Once again, not all armies have access to melta.

MC's can be one-shotted by ID attacks. They are more rare yes, but they can also be double-strength tapped out. Demon princes, Kairos, tyrannocytes, malanthropes etc are MC's with T5. In addition to that, one only needs medium strength + ap3 to deal with the majority of MC's. Against vehicles, one needs high strength (str 6-7 won't cut it), proper positioning (side/rear), possible extremely short range (melta) and (preferably) low ap (2-1) to make it happen. A MC will require more shots to take down, yes, but a vehicle requires more specialized shots.

MC's can't get immobilized but they can be tarpitted, while vehicles can't. Also vehicles are almost all the time much much faster than MC's.

MC's are most definitely NOT hellacious in close combat. Not all MC's are WK's, design mistakes should not be the canon. Most Tyranid MC's have a pitiful Ws 3 and Ini 2, a pathetic number of attacks, no grenades and no rerolls. High strength alone is not enough. Then apart from a black mace DP (where the mace itself is the one dealing the damage rather than the DP), I cannot think of MC's that can actually be considered dedicated assault units. Can't for example find any kind of MC that would do well against TH/SS termies or any other assault staple for that matter.

For all it's worth it, I do believe that in general all shooting attacks should get -1 strength when the target is not at short range. This would go a long way towards making tanks more survivable.

topaxygouroun i wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
" waaaaaay cheaper than MC"

Not for what MCs get.

And what is it that MC's get? (I know this will be a lost cause conversation because comparing MC's to vehicles is useless as they fit different roles, but let's hear it anyways.

After your opinion, please tell me how paying 35 pts for 5-6 hull points, 3+ armor, no exploding transport that doesn't cost a slot is even remotely justified. Because that's the profile Murrdox suggested.

MC's can do LOTS of things that vehicles cannot, even with the ideas that I posted. Just off the TOP of my head....

- MCs can assault.
- Even the weakest, most pathetic MC still attacks with an AP2 weapon.
- Even the weakest, most pathetic MC can still make a S10 AP2 melee attack.
- MCs can fire their weapons at full effectiveness and move their full movement. Vehicles either have to stand still, or fire 1 weapon and then fire snapshots with everything else.
- Vehicles can't gain cover as easily as MCs.
- Vehicles can lose weapons.
- Vehicles can be immobilized.
- Vehicles can be stun-locked and temporarily immobilized.

Of COURSE when you phrase my idea it sounds ludicrious, since a Rhino costs 35 points. Give all those bonuses to a Rhino for only 35 points? Insanity!

I'm coming from a perspective of taking vehicles back to how they were in 5th Edition.

Back in 5th Edition, that 35 point Rhino had NO LIMITATION of hit points at all. You could keep glancing and penetrating it, and if you happened to not roll a 5 or a 6, that Rhino could survive a lot of attacks.

I'm fully open to the fact that all the suggestions I made might tweak vehicles a bit too far in the other direction, but the Hull Point system has really weakened vehicles. I'd like to see them shine a bit more like they did in 5th Edition, without going so far as to having invincible Land Raiders and Monoliths.

topaxygouroun i wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 Vector Strike wrote:
If there are MCs with 6 wounds, there should be vehicles with 6 HP as well (not only S-H). MCs need a table akin to vehicles too

the problem is if you hit a MC with a lascannon and roll a lucky 6 to wound it doesn't just die regardless of how many wounds you have left.

that is why wounds are better then hull points

You can hit a MC with an instant death attack and it will die, the vehicle will not. This comparison does not make any sense.

Hull points are fine. Basic tanks should have 4 starting hull points though, with an optional vehicle upgrade that would add a hull point (new rule for extra armor?). Land raider should have 5 initial HP and go to 6 with an upgrade.

And just how many ID weapons are there in the game? Remind me again, because I can not remember the last time I saw one outside of a Grey Knight army.

Hull points are anything but fine. They essentially take a vehicle and make it into an MC that does not get saves and can still be instagibbed by many weapons in the game (Lascannon, Melta, etc). They render vehicles useless.

All force weapons are ID, meaning all psykers can ID. Tyranids have a lot of ID weapons ranging from boneswords to implant attacks. Demons have a couple of different ones. Other armies might also have them, I am not familiar with them. From memory there should be an elder sniper special character with instant death methinks.

Removing the hull points would make vehicles such a powerhouse that it would be stupid. Tyranids for example would have zero ways to actually kill a transport from range, and even at melee it would take a MC and possibly smash which is 1 attack only. A rhino for 35 pts without hull points. Yeah, no. Hell no. Vehicles are not useless. They are way more cheap than MCs, they can shoot multiple weapons, MC's can only shoot 2. They cannot get locked in combat, cannot get cornered (they just tank shock), their armor equivalent is ridiculously high (AV 10 is the equivalent of Toughness 6, av 13 is the equivalent of Toughness 9, this is ridiculous), they can transport troops etc etc. Any direct comparison between MC's and vehicles would be stupid, they are not the same units, they have different roles. Should vehicles have a better damage table? Yes (ie nothing happens in 1-4, 5 is crew stunned, 6 is weapon destroyed, 7 is immobilized, 8 is destroyed). Should they have more hull points? Yes, 1 hull point more base on every vehicle would upgrade their survivability by 25%. Should we remove the hull points altogether? No way.

I have played for many years with both MC's (tyranids) and vehicles (mecha CSM) and in each army I would like to have a little bit of the other as well. CSM do have DP's though, tyranids get screwed

Okay, how many psykers do you actually see in the game? Not many outside of GK and the occasional Eldar spam. They also have to survive to hit your MC and then wound it.
Tyranids have some? Okay, that is news to me.....
Demons have some? And dont they have to pay through the nose/roll on a random chart to get them?
Nope, no Eldar snipey snipe.
Removing HP would not make vehicles overpowered, it would make them balanced. They would be able to compete again on the same level as MC's and not be instakilled by rapid firing low strength weapons.... Or in other words they would equal your MC powerhouse in capabilities. Now I know that some armies lack something in the AT department but if you look at the most recent 'dexes you will see that these shortcomings have been made up. tyranids can get into melee very easily and will butcher any tank that they hit. Sure, they lack smaller AT units but then again how could a Gaunt kill a tank in melee? Its stupid. And Tyranids could still easilly kill most transports at range - they have the guns too do so.

I do not know where you are getting this "Tanks do far more for their points cost than MC's" stuff but you are most definitely sadly misinformed. An MC is currently far superior to any tank in any way you can imagine. They have saves, are almost immune to small arms fire, are usually as fast or faster, suffer no penalties when they take wounds, have more wounds, can massacre almost anything they hit both at range and in melee, do not get immobilised by a bush and can claim cover by just sticking their toe in it. And MC's can not be oneshotted without either the very rare and expensive ID weapons/units or, in the case of the rare weaker ones, by a lucky hit from a STR 10 weapon.
A tank can not gain any of these advantages and is far more vulnerable

So what? Do you have a problem with tanks being tough? They should be. A tank is protected by thick steel plates where as an MC has a tough hide and thick muscles.... Which is tougher? Besides tanks are hardly more survivable than an MC at this point so no, you are wrong once again. Also: remind me again how many saves an MC gets as opposed to a tank?

More HP is not the answer. The answer is to remove them entirely and go back to a 4th/5th edition style damage table. a glancing hit should do very little, no more than blowing a weapon off or knocking a track loose. A penetrating hit should have at least a 50% chance to destroy the vehicle utterly.

topaxygouroun i wrote:

MC's can't get immobilized but they can be tarpitted, while vehicles can't. Also vehicles are almost all the time much much faster than MC's.

Figured I'd comment on this as well... since I forgot to mention it as yet another weakness of vehicles.

All MCs come with "Moves Through Cover" for free. This makes them pretty fast, and immune to Dangerous Terrain.

Vehicles treat ALL terrain as Dangerous Terrain. They are under constant threat from being Immobilized just for moving over rubble or having part of their hull over some terrain piece.

 Lobukia wrote:
Just make vehicles their own Toughness and give them a save and hit points. Then we'd have one unified mechanic. Go ahead and then make a "vehicle" subtype that has its own special rules (like a bike or an MC or a beast). So much easier.

I have put forward this suggestion multiple times in the proposed rules forum. People don't like change, and they are too attached to having a completely unnecessary alternate form of doing damage from the regular Toughness mechanic.




Sure you'd have to change the affects of haywire, gauss, melta, and armorbane to make it work, but its definitely doable.

You could even make a special rule called VEHICLE that makes them immune to things like poison and fleshbane.

Murrdox wrote:
Back in 5th Edition, that 35 point Rhino had NO LIMITATION of hit points at all. You could keep glancing and penetrating it, and if you happened to not roll a 5 or a 6, that Rhino could survive a lot of attacks.

That was one of the problems with 5th. I saw a single Rhino shrug off over a dozen Las-Cannon Hits during the course of the game and the and the worse that happens was is just could not do anything, but give cover and cause a road block that was stopping other vehicles from getting to the side armor of the Vindi. Not that that mattered because it spent the game not being able to fire.

 Lobukia wrote:
Just make vehicles their own Toughness and give them a save and hit points. Then we'd have one unified mechanic. Go ahead and then make a "vehicle" subtype that has its own special rules (like a bike or an MC or a beast). So much easier.

This. Exactly this. If you wanted you could give them two Toughness and Armor values for front and rear armor. Keep the movement and assault rules. Change haywire to 1 does nothing, 2-5 does 1 wound, 6 does d3 wounds. Change armor bane to does 2 wounds on a failed save, etc.

 master of ordinance wrote:


Okay, how many psykers do you actually see in the game? Not many outside of GK and the occasional Eldar spam.

I apologize for any earlier comments I've made to you, MOO. I had not realized that you were a very young and inexperienced player with a similar local group. That was my oversight, and I was wrong.

2/3rds of all 6th and 7th edition games that I have played with friends, at game stores, and at tournaments have included Psychers including almost every Eldar, Daemons, Chaos Space Marines, IG, and Space Marine list I've faced.

However strong force weapons are, though, that's not what my Black Templar fear. What they fear are Prescience shooty squads, like Grav Cannon Centurions podding in with a cheap librarian (or Grav bikes with a biker librarian). My Templars are challenged against flying daemon prince lists with Invisibility and Iron Arm or Warp Speed. I haven't even gotten to Seer Councils and they're shenanigans.

But we carry on and carry a big stick. That's what we do. That's what we're here for!

I'm with the keep but modify crowd. First, don't have vehicles die automatically when reduced to 0 hull points. Instead all damage rolls get +2 on the damage chart. Then allow glances to roll on the chart with a -3 penalty. The chart should be modified as well. I'm thinking something like: (<1)no effect, (1)stunned, (2)weapon destroyed(owner chooses), (3) weapon destroyed (opponent chooses), (4)immobilized, (5)wrecked, (6+)explodes.

Glances would only destroy on a 6 and then only if the vehicle has been reduced to 0 hull points. Pens destroy on 5+ normally, 3+ if reduced to 0 hull points. Vehicles are more vulnerable to pens, less vulnerable to glances and can still be worn down so they aren't likely to endlessly soak up lascannon fire.

--

Regarding the discussion about Dark Eldar against vehicles in 4th and 5th, my experience was blasters/dark lances did well for the most part though people tended to grumble about having large numbers of those in your list. There was no other good way to take down vehicles though (I don't think haywire was a cost effective option) and they weren't as effective as people feared they were. (Only better than lascannons against AV14.) Monoliths were as good as invincible though. There was no point in even trying to take them out. You had to accept they would do what they wanted all game long and focus your efforts on targets you could destroy.

Gwaihirsbrother wrote:
I'm with the keep but modify crowd. First, don't have vehicles die automatically when reduced to 0 hull points. Instead all damage rolls get +2 on the damage chart. Then allow glances to roll on the chart with a -3 penalty. The chart should be modified as well. I'm thinking something like: (<1)no effect, (1)stunned, (2)weapon destroyed(owner chooses), (3) weapon destroyed (opponent chooses), (4)immobilized, (5)wrecked, (6+)explodes.

Glances would only destroy on a 6 and then only if the vehicle has been reduced to 0 hull points. Pens destroy on 5+ normally, 3+ if reduced to 0 hull points. Vehicles are more vulnerable to pens, less vulnerable to glances and can still be worn down so they aren't likely to endlessly soak up lascannon fire.

The problem with your suggestion is that it makes spam armies even better and nerfs armies with only a handful of Anti tank. An Ork trukk would never survive since its AV10 all around. and now without AP weapons they would be ruined on a 5+ instead of a 6+.

On the subject of making monstrous and vehicles take damage in the same way...

I don't like that idea. Yes it simplifies things but at the cost of loss of flavor and diversity. The two unit types may not function in the same way or be equal in all things, but that's how it should be. As others have mentioned, vehicles are not without benefits monstrous creatures. Most vehicles are immune to S4 shooting, very few MCs are. S8 has 1/2 shot to wound top toughness MCs, 1/6 to "wound" top AV vehicles.

 DoomShakaLaka wrote:

Sure you'd have to change the affects of haywire, gauss, melta, and armorbane to make it work, but its definitely doable.

You already thought of the solution in your next sentence.

You could even make a special rule called VEHICLE that makes them immune to things like poison and fleshbane.

Its really that simple. I've also proposed this same idea, and I know of a few other respected posters that are either using this system or trialing it in some capacity in their own games.

Have a 'mechanical' USR where armourbane, haywire, and melta and similar all hurt more (armour bane wounds on 2+, melta causes 2 wounds per unsaved wound, haywire does it normal thing against wounds now), and then have a 'biological' USR where poison, fleshbane, and whatever else affects them like they currently do.

You'd also need to have a USR that would allow certain of these MCs/Vehicles to assault so as to differentiate between a Russ in combat and a Dreadknight, but its a hell of a lot simpler than having two distinct rule groups for large things in your game. Plus, Riptides and their ilk would finally make sense crunchwise.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gwaihirsbrother wrote:


I don't like that idea. Yes it simplifies things but at the cost of loss of flavor and diversity. The two unit types may not function in the same way or be equal in all things, but that's how it should be. As others have mentioned, vehicles are not without benefits monstrous creatures. Most vehicles are immune to S4 shooting, very few MCs are. S8 has 1/2 shot to wound top toughness MCs, 1/6 to "wound" top AV vehicles.

There be no loss of flavour or diversity. Every unit would still have its own profile, its own set of advantage and disadvantages, and the usual bevy of other USRs that seems to constitute flavour these days.

If anything, it would help flavour things better, as units would better match their fluff. Riptides would be affected by haywire instead of poison, for example. Russes would have armour that matters. All of that enhances flavour as it meshes with the theme better and makes more sense within the game's and universe's logic.

I don't buy the diversity argument at all. You might as well argue that all MCs are the same and all vehicles are the same if you feel that a combined mechanic would cost some important amount of diversity.

In reality, making units more balanced and fair will promote better tabletop diversity anyways, which is better than some theoretical diversity of having a bunch of unique, but otherwise useless units.

So if you were to convert vehicles to having a T and save, what would the T and save of a Rhino be versus a Land Raider for example? Would Str 4 be able to hurt the front armor of Rhinos or are we making Armour 11 == T 8? Would there still be facings?

As it is i think its better than the nightmares that is 5th monolthining (which i was stuck dealing with :/)

Personally would rather see everything in the T system with a special sub type vehicle like others have stated.

Give melta rerolls or whatever, make snipers wound differently against it.

If random effects need to be a thing then make a Critical damage mechanic where 6s that didnt need 6s in the first place lets you roll on an effect table.

AV11 can start off at T7 like most artillery pieces already.

Give special rule where attacking from the rear and in CC you reduce T by 1 or base T6.

so a Chimera would be T8 and i would leave the side at that too since the chimera is pretty easy to kill and needs a bit O buff.

T9 for av 13 and t10 for av14. which correlates perfectly to what is need to glance them anyway.

Zimko wrote:
So if you were to convert vehicles to having a T and save, what would the T and save of a Rhino be versus a Land Raider for example? Would Str 4 be able to hurt the front armor of Rhinos or are we making Armour 11 == T 8? Would there still be facings?

A link to his thread.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/634211.page
Lythrandire Berthandine has a formula somewhere that he uses to calculate AV values into Toughness values.

I'll see if I can find it.
Edit 1
His formula is:
Highest Armor Save on a vehicle – 5= Toughness.

Armor save is equal to 6- (or 7 for open topped) the number of sides that share this value.
Wounds translate over directly.
So a Rhino would be

11-5 = 6
6-3=3
T6 3+ with three wounds.

Space Marine Landspeeder
10-5=5
7-4=3
T5 3+ with 2 wounds


Also some of the old WIP ideas I had for fixing the AT usrs


Armorbane- Weapons with this rule always successfully wound on a 2+ when rolling to wound against models with the Vehicle special rule.
Melta- As with Armorbane, but only when within the weapon is firing within half range.
Lance- Treats models with T7 or higher as being T6.
Gauss- Rolls of six to wound always wound regardless of toughness.

What are the arguments for homogenizing MCs and vehicles?

One is that vehicles aren't as effective/survivable as monstrous creatures. My reply to that in its simplest form is "so what". Why should they be? They are different types of units. This really seems like an argument of personal taste. "Vehicles should be as strong as or stronger than monstrous creatures because steel>flesh in my head." You can't argue taste really.

A second argument is balance, but rules don't need to be made the same to cure that. Points costs and tweaks within the current system can do that. I think much of the complaints here really go back to point 1 in that the problem often isn't balance as much as "its not fair that MCs are more durable than vehicles".

A third argument is complexity. This is the strongest argument in my view though I don't think the AV system is difficult to learn and apply so it isn't really that strong an argument.

Whether wraithnights and riptides should be vehicles or MCs has no bearing on whether the rules should drop the distinction between the two types of units. If they are misscategorized, the solution is to properly categorize them, not scrap the system.

Who is saying vehicles need to be stronger than MC?

Most people just want them to be relevant rather than expendable.

vehicles die fairly easily in a vacuum. using terrain properly takes a lot more skill then foot in ruin for MC. (honestly MC should just not gain ruin bonsus or require to do the same 25% cover that vehicles need to deal with)

and while the AV system isnt complex the damage system excessively punishes any damage done to the vehicle while at best a FMC can possible drop from the sky and get a booboo.

its quite a gap in consequence to take a vehicle.

i would equally enjoy just nerfing MC to the ground.

Changing cover to work the same for all makes sense and doesn't require ditching the AV system.

If vehicles convert to toughness values as an earlier post suggests that looks something like AV14=T10. Vehicles suddenly become dramatically harder to kill than MCs unless MCs get toughness boosts. Middling AV12 becomes as good as a Wraithlord historically one of the more durable units.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I think there is a fine line between to easy to kill and too durable. People want vehicles to be hard to kill, and to be able to take a whole army of them which then makes infantry pointless. Limit how many vehicles can be taken and people get mad, limit how effective they are and people get mad. But one of the two needs to happen to ensure infantry remain a viable option.

topaxygouroun i wrote:


MC's can't get immobilized but they can be tarpitted, while vehicles can't.

To be fair, most vehicles can't be tarpitted either because they're usually dead after a single round of CC. Likewise, Walkers can be tarpitted.

Also vehicles are almost all the time much much faster than MC's.

Not if they want to shoot with any degree of capability in most cases however, and anything with any CC capability isn't any faster than any MC (walkers)

MC's are most definitely NOT hellacious in close combat. Not all MC's are WK's, design mistakes should not be the canon. Most Tyranid MC's have a pitiful Ws 3 and Ini 2, a pathetic number of attacks, no grenades and no rerolls. High strength alone is not enough.

one will notice that most walkers aren't really any better off. Aside from the newest SM codex, most Dreads are A2, while Chaos daemon engines are WS3 Init3.

Then apart from a black mace DP (where the mace itself is the one dealing the damage rather than the DP), I cannot think of MC's that can actually be considered dedicated assault units.

Carnifexes, Bloodthirsters, Trygons, the Avatar, Talos, Cronos, Tomb Stalker, Keeper of Secrets, Dimachaeron, Swarmlord, etc?

Can't for example find any kind of MC that would do well against TH/SS termies or any other assault staple for that matter.

TH/SS termi's are a dedicated anti-big-thing unit designed specifically to engage things like MC's, and you won't find any vehicle that's going to do well against them either.

But av14 was already that tough.
Nothing actually changes so long as you fix melta and armor bane rules to fit.

as well giving them armor saves will only help them slightly against the generic spam tactics everyone uses. regular anti tank will work exactly the same as they all have lower AP

To be honest I don't mind HP, just the damage table doesn't really do much.

I really want a return to penning vehicles and having a chance to destroying them. Maybe make a 6/4+ roll destroy the vehicle?

I find it strange how weapons like the battlecannon cannot destroy a vehicle they penetrate purely because they are AP1 or 2..... and why should an armour penetration stat help post penetration instead of the penetration roll?

topaxygouroun i wrote:

Murrdox wrote:

1) Increase the Hull points of most units in the game by 2-3.
2) Explodes! Result removes an additional Hull Point. If the vehicle has no Hull Points left, it explodes. Otherwise, it remains in play.
3) All Vehicles given a 3+ Armor Save by default.
4) Vehicles are WS 3 in melee as long as they are not immobile. Fast and Skimmer types add 1 to the effective WS. So a Fast Skimmer would be WS5.
5) Allow all vehicles to target multiple units with different weapon mounts.

I will agree on this if the Rhino goes to 90 pts, naked Predators go to 160 and Land raiders go to 320 points. Otherwise, no freaking way. People always forget that Vehicles are waaaaaay cheaper than MC's. And you want to have a 35 pt Rhino have the same survivability as a 190 pt Tervigon (6 wounds/hull points, 3+ armor, T6/AV10). Seriously? Do people even think before they post?

And a Wraith Knight cost only 295 with 2 wraith cannons and can swap for melee for free. While an Imperial Knight costs 325 with no guns.

MC cost more because they cant explode.

 Filch wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:

Murrdox wrote:

1) Increase the Hull points of most units in the game by 2-3.
2) Explodes! Result removes an additional Hull Point. If the vehicle has no Hull Points left, it explodes. Otherwise, it remains in play.
3) All Vehicles given a 3+ Armor Save by default.
4) Vehicles are WS 3 in melee as long as they are not immobile. Fast and Skimmer types add 1 to the effective WS. So a Fast Skimmer would be WS5.
5) Allow all vehicles to target multiple units with different weapon mounts.

I will agree on this if the Rhino goes to 90 pts, naked Predators go to 160 and Land raiders go to 320 points. Otherwise, no freaking way. People always forget that Vehicles are waaaaaay cheaper than MC's. And you want to have a 35 pt Rhino have the same survivability as a 190 pt Tervigon (6 wounds/hull points, 3+ armor, T6/AV10). Seriously? Do people even think before they post?

And a Wraith Knight cost only 295 with 2 wraith cannons and can swap for melee for free. While an Imperial Knight costs 325 with no guns.

MC cost more because they cant explode.

Also can move and shoot without being penalized, or charge (besides walkers).

Maybe another generic fix should be the smash, stomp, ram, and tank shock system. it seems overly useless besides end game objective grabbing. (which is rare already)

 Filch wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:

Murrdox wrote:

1) Increase the Hull points of most units in the game by 2-3.
2) Explodes! Result removes an additional Hull Point. If the vehicle has no Hull Points left, it explodes. Otherwise, it remains in play.
3) All Vehicles given a 3+ Armor Save by default.
4) Vehicles are WS 3 in melee as long as they are not immobile. Fast and Skimmer types add 1 to the effective WS. So a Fast Skimmer would be WS5.
5) Allow all vehicles to target multiple units with different weapon mounts.

I will agree on this if the Rhino goes to 90 pts, naked Predators go to 160 and Land raiders go to 320 points. Otherwise, no freaking way. People always forget that Vehicles are waaaaaay cheaper than MC's. And you want to have a 35 pt Rhino have the same survivability as a 190 pt Tervigon (6 wounds/hull points, 3+ armor, T6/AV10). Seriously? Do people even think before they post?

And a Wraith Knight cost only 295 with 2 wraith cannons and can swap for melee for free. While an Imperial Knight costs 325 with no guns.

MC cost more because they cant explode.

Then why does the fully upgraded Wraith Knight cost 30 points less than the basic, unupgraded, Imperial Knight, the Wraith Knight being superior in every way to an Imperial Knight even when it is stock?

The current system is horrible and GW should feel bad about it. Glancing hits can destroy a vehicle? seriously GW?
Glancing hits should be able to get anything from a crew shaken to immobilised result, but should not do any actual structural damage (what do you mean glancing hits) and take of hull points. Penetrating hits on the other hand should be far more destructive. Not only should there be a chance to blow up the fuel or munition, but also to kill the crew or destroy the engine/power source of the vehicle. To destroy a vehicle you need to either kill the crew, destroy the engine or blow up the munition storage. You need to actually penetrate the hull in order to do that, so why does just hitting the outside of the vehicle suddenly lead to critical existence failure in 40k? It makes no logical sense, just like the rest of the vehicle system in 40k.

The idea of hull points is bad. There exist no such thing as "hull points". Vehicles should only be destroyed with penetrating hits. A vehicle could be fine on a roll of 1 or 2, suffer critical damage to one of its systems or crew members (the amount and type of which should depend on vehicle type, a second roll would tell you which one gets taken out) on a roll of 3 or 4 and get blown up entirely on a roll of 5 or 6 to just give a more logical example (is this how it worked in 5th?)

 Iron_Captain wrote:
The current system is horrible and GW should feel bad about it. Glancing hits can destroy a vehicle? seriously GW?
Glancing hits should be able to get anything from a crew shaken to immobilised result, but should not do any actual structural damage (what do you mean glancing hits) and take of hull points. Penetrating hits on the other hand should be far more destructive. Not only should there be a chance to blow up the fuel or munition, but also to kill the crew or destroy the engine/power source of the vehicle. To destroy a vehicle you need to either kill the crew, destroy the engine or blow up the munition storage. You need to actually penetrate the hull in order to do that, so why does just hitting the outside of the vehicle suddenly lead to critical existence failure in 40k? It makes no logical sense, just like the rest of the vehicle system in 40k.

The idea of hull points is bad. There exist no such thing as "hull points". Vehicles should only be destroyed with penetrating hits. A vehicle could be fine on a roll of 1 or 2, suffer critical damage to one of its systems or crew members (the amount and type of which should depend on vehicle type, a second roll would tell you which one gets taken out) on a roll of 3 or 4 and get blown up entirely on a roll of 5 or 6 to just give a more logical example (is this how it worked in 5th?)

Yes it was, all it took was one battle's worth of bad rolls and you could not even kill a Rhino with Melta without hitting it multiple times and "Equipmenting" it out.

 Anpu42 wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
The current system is horrible and GW should feel bad about it. Glancing hits can destroy a vehicle? seriously GW?
Glancing hits should be able to get anything from a crew shaken to immobilised result, but should not do any actual structural damage (what do you mean glancing hits) and take of hull points. Penetrating hits on the other hand should be far more destructive. Not only should there be a chance to blow up the fuel or munition, but also to kill the crew or destroy the engine/power source of the vehicle. To destroy a vehicle you need to either kill the crew, destroy the engine or blow up the munition storage. You need to actually penetrate the hull in order to do that, so why does just hitting the outside of the vehicle suddenly lead to critical existence failure in 40k? It makes no logical sense, just like the rest of the vehicle system in 40k.

The idea of hull points is bad. There exist no such thing as "hull points". Vehicles should only be destroyed with penetrating hits. A vehicle could be fine on a roll of 1 or 2, suffer critical damage to one of its systems or crew members (the amount and type of which should depend on vehicle type, a second roll would tell you which one gets taken out) on a roll of 3 or 4 and get blown up entirely on a roll of 5 or 6 to just give a more logical example (is this how it worked in 5th?)

Yes it was, all it took was one battle's worth of bad rolls and you could not even kill a Rhino with Melta without hitting it multiple times and "Equipmenting" it out.

Yep. 5th edition is at LEAST equally bad for a rule-set as what we have now except in the opposite direction as vehicles were too strong.

 Anpu42 wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
The current system is horrible and GW should feel bad about it. Glancing hits can destroy a vehicle? seriously GW?
Glancing hits should be able to get anything from a crew shaken to immobilised result, but should not do any actual structural damage (what do you mean glancing hits) and take of hull points. Penetrating hits on the other hand should be far more destructive. Not only should there be a chance to blow up the fuel or munition, but also to kill the crew or destroy the engine/power source of the vehicle. To destroy a vehicle you need to either kill the crew, destroy the engine or blow up the munition storage. You need to actually penetrate the hull in order to do that, so why does just hitting the outside of the vehicle suddenly lead to critical existence failure in 40k? It makes no logical sense, just like the rest of the vehicle system in 40k.

The idea of hull points is bad. There exist no such thing as "hull points". Vehicles should only be destroyed with penetrating hits. A vehicle could be fine on a roll of 1 or 2, suffer critical damage to one of its systems or crew members (the amount and type of which should depend on vehicle type, a second roll would tell you which one gets taken out) on a roll of 3 or 4 and get blown up entirely on a roll of 5 or 6 to just give a more logical example (is this how it worked in 5th?)

Yes it was, all it took was one battle's worth of bad rolls and you could not even kill a Rhino with Melta without hitting it multiple times and "Equipmenting" it out.

I honestly don't think Hull points are what's wrong with vehicles. But I personally like the idea of Hull points. Wearing away the outer armor, treads, general wear and tear on the vehicle. Yeah, after enough damage, a vehicle should just stop working. Hence Hull points.

Vehicles have too many liabilities on top of hull points.

Martel732 wrote:
Vehicles have too many liabilities on top of hull points.

Exactly this. As I said before the number of weapons that can one shot kill an MC are limited to a handful per army and usually only in very expensive HQ choices. The obvious exception being Grey Knights.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kronk wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:


Okay, how many psykers do you actually see in the game? Not many outside of GK and the occasional Eldar spam.

I apologize for any earlier comments I've made to you, MOO. I had not realized that you were a very young and inexperienced player with a similar local group. That was my oversight, and I was wrong.

2/3rds of all 6th and 7th edition games that I have played with friends, at game stores, and at tournaments have included Psychers including almost every Eldar, Daemons, Chaos Space Marines, IG, and Space Marine list I've faced.

However strong force weapons are, though, that's not what my Black Templar fear. What they fear are Prescience shooty squads, like Grav Cannon Centurions podding in with a cheap librarian (or Grav bikes with a biker librarian). My Templars are challenged against flying daemon prince lists with Invisibility and Iron Arm or Warp Speed. I haven't even gotten to Seer Councils and they're shenanigans.

But we carry on and carry a big stick. That's what we do. That's what we're here for!

Not young and inexperienced - I have been playing for many a year now

My point however though may be biased - outside of my usual SM player and the local GK and Eldar players I do not usually see more than a few (0 - 4) psykers being fielded per game. This may just be a thing with my club but when you have players with entire knight households and titan legions little things like psykers tend to take the bck bench of the notice route.
To tell you the truth though I find that IG psykers are currently overpriced - hence my only psyker being my Demon Blade wielding Inquisitor

That said and done I whole heartedly agree with you on the Invisible and Prescience shenanigans of which almost every army has within its inventory these days. Psykers and psychic powers in general need toning down to a more reasonable level and flyers need removing or utterly re-writing all together.

Do not worry about my big stick - as I type this I can see my staff over in the corner. It just needs shodding now

Martel732 wrote:
Vehicles have too many liabilities on top of hull points.

Absolutely true.

Vehicles if given toughness and hitpoints and a 4+ save would be so much better. Instead of AV14, just T10

Model type "vehicle"

Only AP1 removes armor save, AP 2 forces successful saves to reroll

Eternal warrior

Just give it all the crazy rules we already have...
-relentless
-can shoot all weapons if not moving
-can shoot 1 weapon and snapfire rest if moving 6"
-can snapfire all weapons and move 12"
-can embark as per capacity
etc.

Ignore...
-fleshbane
-poison
-etc

Reword a few rules in minor ways
-haywire 1-nothing, 2-5 1hp, 6 2hp
-melta counts as +3 str against vehicles at half range
-armourbane counts as +3 str against vehicles
-etc

Give them and walkers a facing rule, and assign lesser toughness for facings

or

make a special "flanking" rule that firing into a side facing lowers the T by 1 and rear is T6 but certain vehicles (Land Raider) are immune to flanking changes to their T

there. done. no more AV

And truthfully, the edition after the change we'd find ourselves eliminating so many superfluous vehicle rules that it'd streamline real soon.

 Lobukia wrote:
Eternal warrior

So take vehicles back to 5th were they were un-kill-able?

Just give it all the crazy rules we already have...
-relentless
-can shoot all weapons if not moving
-can shoot 1 weapon and snapfire rest if moving 6"
-can snapfire all weapons and move 12"
-can embark as per capacity

Ok with that

Ignore...
-fleshbane
-poison
-etc

Ok with that

Reword a few rules in minor ways
-haywire 1-nothing, 2-5 1hp, 6 2hp
-melta counts as +3 str against vehicles at half range
-armourbane counts as +3 str against vehicles
-etc

Why not just make Armorbane work like Fleshbane?

Give them and walkers a facing rule, and assign lesser toughness for facings

or

make a special "flanking" rule that firing into a side facing lowers the T by 1 and rear is T6 but certain vehicles (Land Raider) are immune to flanking changes to their T

I would rather not add stuff like that, just adds to rules. RT/!st did not have facings and it worked fine.

 krodarklorr wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
The current system is horrible and GW should feel bad about it. Glancing hits can destroy a vehicle? seriously GW?
Glancing hits should be able to get anything from a crew shaken to immobilised result, but should not do any actual structural damage (what do you mean glancing hits) and take of hull points. Penetrating hits on the other hand should be far more destructive. Not only should there be a chance to blow up the fuel or munition, but also to kill the crew or destroy the engine/power source of the vehicle. To destroy a vehicle you need to either kill the crew, destroy the engine or blow up the munition storage. You need to actually penetrate the hull in order to do that, so why does just hitting the outside of the vehicle suddenly lead to critical existence failure in 40k? It makes no logical sense, just like the rest of the vehicle system in 40k.

The idea of hull points is bad. There exist no such thing as "hull points". Vehicles should only be destroyed with penetrating hits. A vehicle could be fine on a roll of 1 or 2, suffer critical damage to one of its systems or crew members (the amount and type of which should depend on vehicle type, a second roll would tell you which one gets taken out) on a roll of 3 or 4 and get blown up entirely on a roll of 5 or 6 to just give a more logical example (is this how it worked in 5th?)

Yes it was, all it took was one battle's worth of bad rolls and you could not even kill a Rhino with Melta without hitting it multiple times and "Equipmenting" it out.

I honestly don't think Hull points are what's wrong with vehicles. But I personally like the idea of Hull points. Wearing away the outer armor, treads, general wear and tear on the vehicle. Yeah, after enough damage, a vehicle should just stop working. Hence Hull points.

That's really not how they work though, at least not armored vehicles. Armored vehicles typically don't care until something penetrates the armor and something very bad happens. I mean, there are examples of tanks with dozens of hits and all sorts of external damage that were able to survive engagements because nothing penetrated through to the inside to hit anything critical or explode. About the only way external damage causes a tank to become a casualty is if it's immobilized and the crew abandon it, aside from that, something must penetrate the armor and do something bad.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
The current system is horrible and GW should feel bad about it. Glancing hits can destroy a vehicle? seriously GW?
Glancing hits should be able to get anything from a crew shaken to immobilised result, but should not do any actual structural damage (what do you mean glancing hits) and take of hull points. Penetrating hits on the other hand should be far more destructive. Not only should there be a chance to blow up the fuel or munition, but also to kill the crew or destroy the engine/power source of the vehicle. To destroy a vehicle you need to either kill the crew, destroy the engine or blow up the munition storage. You need to actually penetrate the hull in order to do that, so why does just hitting the outside of the vehicle suddenly lead to critical existence failure in 40k? It makes no logical sense, just like the rest of the vehicle system in 40k.

The idea of hull points is bad. There exist no such thing as "hull points". Vehicles should only be destroyed with penetrating hits. A vehicle could be fine on a roll of 1 or 2, suffer critical damage to one of its systems or crew members (the amount and type of which should depend on vehicle type, a second roll would tell you which one gets taken out) on a roll of 3 or 4 and get blown up entirely on a roll of 5 or 6 to just give a more logical example (is this how it worked in 5th?)

Yes it was, all it took was one battle's worth of bad rolls and you could not even kill a Rhino with Melta without hitting it multiple times and "Equipmenting" it out.

I honestly don't think Hull points are what's wrong with vehicles. But I personally like the idea of Hull points. Wearing away the outer armor, treads, general wear and tear on the vehicle. Yeah, after enough damage, a vehicle should just stop working. Hence Hull points.

That's really not how they work though, at least not armored vehicles. Armored vehicles typically don't care until something penetrates the armor and something very bad happens. I mean, there are examples of tanks with dozens of hits and all sorts of external damage that were able to survive engagements because nothing penetrated through to the inside to hit anything critical or explode. About the only way external damage causes a tank to become a casualty is if it's immobilized and the crew abandon it, aside from that, something must penetrate the armor and do something bad.

I agree that a Penetration system would be more 'realistic'. But as the system currently works 8.8cm Guns [Las-Cannons] should not bounce off M3 Half-Tracks [Rhinos] 1/6th of the time. At least with Hull Points you can kill off any vehicle even on a bod day.

I would say that Glancing Blows making Crew Shaken/Crew Stunned would be better than a Hull Point.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
The current system is horrible and GW should feel bad about it. Glancing hits can destroy a vehicle? seriously GW?
Glancing hits should be able to get anything from a crew shaken to immobilised result, but should not do any actual structural damage (what do you mean glancing hits) and take of hull points. Penetrating hits on the other hand should be far more destructive. Not only should there be a chance to blow up the fuel or munition, but also to kill the crew or destroy the engine/power source of the vehicle. To destroy a vehicle you need to either kill the crew, destroy the engine or blow up the munition storage. You need to actually penetrate the hull in order to do that, so why does just hitting the outside of the vehicle suddenly lead to critical existence failure in 40k? It makes no logical sense, just like the rest of the vehicle system in 40k.

The idea of hull points is bad. There exist no such thing as "hull points". Vehicles should only be destroyed with penetrating hits. A vehicle could be fine on a roll of 1 or 2, suffer critical damage to one of its systems or crew members (the amount and type of which should depend on vehicle type, a second roll would tell you which one gets taken out) on a roll of 3 or 4 and get blown up entirely on a roll of 5 or 6 to just give a more logical example (is this how it worked in 5th?)

Yes it was, all it took was one battle's worth of bad rolls and you could not even kill a Rhino with Melta without hitting it multiple times and "Equipmenting" it out.

I honestly don't think Hull points are what's wrong with vehicles. But I personally like the idea of Hull points. Wearing away the outer armor, treads, general wear and tear on the vehicle. Yeah, after enough damage, a vehicle should just stop working. Hence Hull points.

That's really not how they work though, at least not armored vehicles. Armored vehicles typically don't care until something penetrates the armor and something very bad happens. I mean, there are examples of tanks with dozens of hits and all sorts of external damage that were able to survive engagements because nothing penetrated through to the inside to hit anything critical or explode. About the only way external damage causes a tank to become a casualty is if it's immobilized and the crew abandon it, aside from that, something must penetrate the armor and do something bad.

There are recorded accounts of tanks literally taking hundreds of hits and continuing to function. I remember the story of a Tiger that took close to two hundred hits including one from a 6PDR, the shell of which stuck in the glacis plate, and survived with nothing more than some chipped paint.
The current HP system does not make any sense - an ineffective hit plus an ineffective hit plus an ineffective hit do not miraculously knock out a tank. They might knock a track off or damage a weapon or stun the crew but that is just about it.
A penetrating hit on the other hand will usually destroy the vehicle.

 Anpu42 wrote:

So take vehicles back to 5th were they were un-kill-able?

EW just keeps them from being one shotted

I would rather not add stuff like that, just adds to rules. RT/!st did not have facings and it worked fine.

I agree that stuff should go... I just can't see facing go soon

One shot takes out treads, another disables main gun/turret. You have a useless box for the rest of the battle without penetrating the hull right? I don't claim much about tanks IRL so mean this workout snark. Just in theory I would guess glances could render the vehicle useless though probably not nearly as easily as they do currently.

--

Another thread suggested "glance" really means "minor damage" in game terms and is a misnomer. If you look at it that way it gets around the concept of "a glance can't do that".

Gwaihirsbrother wrote:
One shot takes out treads, another disables main gun/turret. You have a useless box for the rest of the battle without penetrating the hull right? I don't claim much about tanks IRL so mean this workout snark. Just in theory I would guess glances could render the vehicle useless though probably not nearly as easily as they do currently.

--

Another thread suggested "glance" really means "minor damage" in game terms and is a misnomer. If you look at it that way it gets around the concept of "a glance can't do that".

You would be surprised how easily a turret ring can be freed up after being jammed. I mean sure, it still will nit rotate as well but it will still be able to rotate.

The perceived problems with the current rules for vehicles is that vehicles die too easily in 7th while the opposite was true in 5th. Right? So obviously we just need to find a middle ground.

Changing to using a Toughness may be a solution but one that brings more complication when you consider facings.

Also, in the current iteration of the rules, jinking vehicles such as skimmers are actually considered to be fairly durable and usable, right?

So how about just a simple 4+ invulnerable save against HP loss? So Penetrating Hits still roll on the chart but might not remove a HP. And glancing hits are half as effective. This represents the odds of a glancing blow being ineffective or a penetrating shot not reducing the overall structure of the vehicle.

You could even go as far as to say that Heavy vehicles instead get a 3+ save. And skimmers can opt to Jink to reroll the save (though that does nothing if you penetrate and roll an explodes.)

It's a simple change that makes things like haywire and strength 6 spam not so effective while not changing the fundamentals of facings or AV.

Minor damage does not disable a tank. If the hit disables a critical component or ability, it is major damage.

 Psienesis wrote:
Minor damage does not disable a tank. If the hit disables a critical component or ability, it is major damage.

Exactly

Honestly AV system is fine.

as is the concept of having Hull points.

Iv said it before in IIRC a different thread but I feel the primary issue against vehicles is the high amount of upper mid str weapons with high ap that can glance anything to death with no repercussion.

cover saves help but its much harder for vehicles with there own special cover rules.

I think the best and simplest fix is to just give vehicles an armor save. probably around a 3+. it hurts the spam tactics in a way that you can play vehicles aggressively again, while low ap actual anti tank weapons have an actual use and forces you to use cover if they are present.

at least i feel its the quickest fix with minimum effort to playtest.

If it becomes an issue then maybe no armor saves in CC since its mostly people jamming potatos down tail pipes and stuff.

Though on that though i wish vehicles was able to overwatch. makes sense with such defensive weapons like the heavy flamers and bolters strapped up top.

 Anpu42 wrote:

I agree that a Penetration system would be more 'realistic'. But as the system currently works 8.8cm Guns [Las-Cannons] should not bounce off M3 Half-Tracks [Rhinos] 1/6th of the time. At least with Hull Points you can kill off any vehicle even on a bod day.

Well, lets be honest, in real life, an 88 vs an M3 with a sub 800 meter shot would be like a BS10 Destroyer weapon

That said,the hull points have numerous issues. This whole double-overlapping kill system and being treated as T based units in some ways but still having the drawbacks of vehicles from older editions just isn't working well. If we're going to give models wounds, we should just make them T/Sv units and do away with the damage chart. If we want them to function as close to real armored vehicles as possible within the realm of a D6 based system on a 1-10 sliding scale of weapon strength, going back to system more akin to 5E wound probably be best.

Vehicles weren't unkillable in 5E, in fact, they were easier to kill with dedicated anti-tank guns like meltas, vanquisher cannons, and railguns, it was just more variable and you couldn't plink them to death. Even running a 15 tank army in 5E, I had games where they all died, and would routinely lose double-digits worth of vehicles even in relatively casual games.

As I said earlier, it was the transports that didn't care about most damage results and the fact that 4+ cover was really abundant that made problems.

 master of ordinance wrote:


There are recorded accounts of tanks literally taking hundreds of hits and continuing to function. I remember the story of a Tiger that took close to two hundred hits including one from a 6PDR, the shell of which stuck in the glacis plate, and survived with nothing more than some chipped paint.
The current HP system does not make any sense - an ineffective hit plus an ineffective hit plus an ineffective hit do not miraculously knock out a tank. They might knock a track off or damage a weapon or stun the crew but that is just about it.
A penetrating hit on the other hand will usually destroy the vehicle.

Indeed, and that's the way many other games play them.

In fact, another option might be to ditch HP's for armored vehicles (keep them for relatively unarmored things like Trukks or Raiders where they make a bit more sense), up the AV on everything, and make penetrating hits extremely lethal. Flames of War works off of what's called "firepower", every weapon has Firepower rating that's used to determine how well they kill something once they breach defenses in addition to a strength value. Against infantry, you roll your firepower to break through things like trench lines and other entrenchments after you've hit. Against something like a tank, they have a Strength vs Armor roll just like 40k does (but a wider array of Strength and Armor values), and once penetrated, you roll your firepower to see if you kill the tank. If you fail, the tank is disabled for a turn (e.g a through and through shot or it just didn't hit something immediately vital), if you succeed, the tank is destroyed. Firepower on most tank guns is a 3+, while some go right up to 1+. This makes penetrating the armor extremely deadly, but otherwise the tank isn't going to care.

So if we get something like a Chimera is AV13/12/12, but a Lascannon that penetrates is killing it on a 4+, or a railgun on a penetrating 3+, vehicles are entirely killable, but require actual dedicated AT guns to kill, not just spamming multi-role mid-strength weapons to strip HP's. That might require a bit more reworking of weapons and vehicles, but might be a much better method overall.

So, kind of like Bolt Action's vehicle damage system?

 TheCustomLime wrote:
So, kind of like Bolt Action's vehicle damage system?

Now that is a really good suggestion. Bolt Actions vehicle system works really, really, well and feels right.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:


There are recorded accounts of tanks literally taking hundreds of hits and continuing to function. I remember the story of a Tiger that took close to two hundred hits including one from a 6PDR, the shell of which stuck in the glacis plate, and survived with nothing more than some chipped paint.
The current HP system does not make any sense - an ineffective hit plus an ineffective hit plus an ineffective hit do not miraculously knock out a tank. They might knock a track off or damage a weapon or stun the crew but that is just about it.
A penetrating hit on the other hand will usually destroy the vehicle.

Indeed, and that's the way many other games play them.

In fact, another option might be to ditch HP's for armored vehicles (keep them for relatively unarmored things like Trukks or Raiders where they make a bit more sense), up the AV on everything, and make penetrating hits extremely lethal. Flames of War works off of what's called "firepower", every weapon has Firepower rating that's used to determine how well they kill something once they breach defenses in addition to a strength value. Against infantry, you roll your firepower to break through things like trench lines and other entrenchments after you've hit. Against something like a tank, they have a Strength vs Armor roll just like 40k does (but a wider array of Strength and Armor values), and once penetrated, you roll your firepower to see if you kill the tank. If you fail, the tank is disabled for a turn (e.g a through and through shot or it just didn't hit something immediately vital), if you succeed, the tank is destroyed. Firepower on most tank guns is a 3+, while some go right up to 1+. This makes penetrating the armor extremely deadly, but otherwise the tank isn't going to care.

So if we get something like a Chimera is AV13/12/12, but a Lascannon that penetrates is killing it on a 4+, or a railgun on a penetrating 3+, vehicles are entirely killable, but require actual dedicated AT guns to kill, not just spamming multi-role mid-strength weapons to strip HP's. That might require a bit more reworking of weapons and vehicles, but might be a much better method overall.

I like this. It would make tanks feel like tanks once again whilst at the same time bringing back the relevance of high strength low AP single shot dedicated AT guns.

Bolt Action's system does work well at somewhat capturing the realities of modern warfare. The problem is that with all of the firepower going around these days it'd be too easy to glance/penetrate armor. To integrate a system like that you'd need to redesign 40k from the ground up.

Not that it doesn't need it, of course. 40K really needs some kind of reboot.

 Desubot wrote:
Honestly AV system is fine.

as is the concept of having Hull points.

Iv said it before in IIRC a different thread but I feel the primary issue against vehicles is the high amount of upper mid str weapons with high ap that can glance anything to death with no repercussion.

cover saves help but its much harder for vehicles with there own special cover rules.

I think the best and simplest fix is to just give vehicles an armor save. probably around a 3+. it hurts the spam tactics in a way that you can play vehicles aggressively again, while low ap actual anti tank weapons have an actual use and forces you to use cover if they are present.

at least i feel its the quickest fix with minimum effort to playtest.

If it becomes an issue then maybe no armor saves in CC since its mostly people jamming potatos down tail pipes and stuff.

Though on that though i wish vehicles was able to overwatch. makes sense with such defensive weapons like the heavy flamers and bolters strapped up top.

I agree with this. The issue is not with hull points, it's with the increased popularity of high strength weapons.

An armor save would be the simplest route to sort the issue, but adding more saving throws to the game makes dice rolling just a bit more tedious.

There should be some mechanic that determines whether or not a glance takes off a hull point that does not involve another dice roll. Maybe just a -1 modifier to rolls would do it.

I think with the state of the 40k each vehicle should get a +1 to HP value, and that would make the game a bit funner, and vehicles more worth their points, at least Space Marine and Necron-wise.

In other words, I don't mind the HP system, and prefer it to the prior 40k rules for vehicles, I just think vehicles go down too easy with the baseline Rhino HP 3 stat.

+1? I'd say double or nothing.

Ineffective hit + ineffective hit + ineffective hit = target eliminated is...

How a wounds/hit points system, which is very unrealistic, works. If you don't like it on vehicles for reasons of realism, take it off of living things too, where the same objections apply.

Or get rid of human-sized multi-wound models, and write up a damage chart for monsters like in AoS.

I think people need to stop seeing glancing hits simply as ineffective hit. Those that hit and don't even pen would be ineffective realistically. Then again glancing armour isn't really a real thing.

I honesty think like others said the whole vehicle damage thing should be redone. However if you took it along logical lines of how it works IRL, you would completely have to redo all the vehicle and weapon stats. Pretty much requiring a complete reboot, and do you think GW is going to do that with the uproar around AoS?

 Baldeagle91 wrote:
I think people need to stop seeing glancing hits simply as ineffective hit. Those that hit and don't even pen would be ineffective realistically. Then again glancing armour isn't really a real thing.

Except a glancing hit in 40K has, since 3rd edition, represented a hit that did not penetrate the armour but did manage to hit some external component like a guns barrel, or the running gear or a track. That is what a glancing hit is: A hit that does not penetrate but does manage to strike an external component or hit hard enough to temporarily startle the crew.

And BTW I am all for having a chart that gives penalties to multi wound characters and MC's and GC's as they take wounds.

 master of ordinance wrote:

 Baldeagle91 wrote:
I think people need to stop seeing glancing hits simply as ineffective hit. Those that hit and don't even pen would be ineffective realistically. Then again glancing armour isn't really a real thing.

Except a glancing hit in 40K has, since 3rd edition, represented a hit that did not penetrate the armour but did manage to hit some external component like a guns barrel, or the running gear or a track. That is what a glancing hit is: A hit that does not penetrate but does manage to strike an external component or hit hard enough to temporarily startle the crew.

And BTW I am all for having a chart that gives penalties to multi wound characters and MC's and GC's as they take wounds.

In all honesty I think hull points also gave GW a chance to completely revamp the vehicle damage system. But as I said it would require all the vehicle and weapon stats to be completely redone and fat chance of that happening.

I'm not too sure how I feel about the whole glancing to death thing, but then again it depends how much AV 14 is on the field, though it does unfairly effect things that are AV 12 imo.

Honestly this is a controversial thing but I think it was mostly a good idea, I'll vote "Yes".
I realize it's caused some issues, but at the same time the previous way caused some problems with how to deal with Vehicles by the sounds of it.
I wouldn't be opposed to Armor saves (or some other kind of save) against Glancing Hits and/or maybe a less useful damage chart used only for Glances? Like 1-3 is no effect, 4 loses 1 HP, 5 is Crew Shaken, 6 is Crew Stunned?
I suppose the unified damage thing giving Vehicles Toughness, Wounds, saves and a special rule wouldn't be necessarily terrible but I'm not 100% sold on it.

I think dropping hullpoints and adding a more punishing damage chart than the current incantation (a lot of people have suggested 5th's) would help to give vehicles a unique battlefield role. But, skimmers should also lose their jink ability, and their advantage becomes solely limited to faster movement/better shooting while doing so.

Rhinos are supposed to be ARMOURED transports yet they die quicker than a Land Speeder.

I still say that removing the AV system from the game is the way to go. Toughness and armor saves have an inherent advantage over their av brethren.

Only real issue I see with this: Grav goes from glancing on 6s against tanks to wounding on armor saves. Which will generally be at least a 4+

 Vaktathi wrote:


Likewise, the addition of HP's and changes to vehicle CC make tanks absurdly easy to kill in CC. 10 krak grenades will, even with below average rolling, kill 95% of vehicles in the game in a single round of combat. The vehicle really has no defense, they're hit on 3's no matter how fast they moved or if they jinked or anything else, don't get Overwatch, and are automatically hit on rear armor. Coupled with the HP system means that it's trivially easy for most basic troops to kill any vehicle in one round of combat, be it a heavy battle tank or a weeny transport, and do so largely without any risk to themselves or any sort of defensive measures possible on the part of the vehicle.

Additionally, with HP's, the dramatic expansion in availability and type of weapons that ignore AV (Haywire, Gauss, Grav, etc) make it often trivially easy to strip HP's from even heavily armored vehicles. An AV14 Leman Russ looks tough, but when it's only got 3 "wounds" and a Skitarii unit with 3 rapid-fire Haywire guns is sitting there hitting it on BS7 and "wounding" it on 2's (with no save), their staying power is rather limited.


At this point, the game really needs to either go back to a 5E style damage table and drop HP's altogether, or drop the damage table altogether and either increase the HP count of most vehicles or give them some sort of a save (though I think the latter would still leave the situation that big heavy anti-tank guns like Vanquisher cannons or Railguns are some of the least effective AT weapons).

The issue there isn't hull points themselves, it's the mechanic that vehicles inherently lack anti-personnel defense, since few of them do in the fluff. There's no reason why ground vehicles like tanks and transports don't have an AP frag belt that the gunner/driver fires on encroaching enemy troops, other than 40K being a miniature hobby that happens to use wargame rules, rather than a wargame that happens to use miniatures.

 DoomShakaLaka wrote:
I still say that removing the AV system from the game is the way to go. Toughness and armor saves have an inherent advantage over their av brethren.

Only real issue I see with this: Grav goes from glancing on 6s against tanks to wounding on armor saves. Which will generally be at least a 4+

Honestly the way grav weapons fluff wise works. it should of hurt them much harder. though not saying i want grav weapons to be even better (rather see it nerfed or completely changed to do something different)

The AV part of AV system i think is fine. meeting a number using STR works fine and is basicly the same thing as hitting a specific number on a chart.

it is in fact a lot simpler overall in the sense that you dont need to memorize a chart to figure out if you hurt it or not.

the problem is that the after effect of any pens royally feths up a tank and tanks cant take that many hits with no saves of any kind.

The AV system makes little sense these days when there are wraithknights/riptides/giant MC that work at full efficiency until they are killed, and for some reason vehicles get stunned/shaken/ weapons blown off/immobilized instead of working at full capacity until dead.

makes no sense.

Given the proliferation of mid to high strength weapons in recent releases, perhaps a balancing solution could be to increase the AV of all tanks and walkers by 1 (regular vehicles would stay the same). That way, nothing short of an assaultcannon could hurt a Rhino in the front, while things like melta weapons and dedicated anti-tank will still punch a hole fairly easily. And things like Land Raiders won't go down as easily, but since they're so overcosted anyway, this might actually make them usable.

Thinking of it, you could have facing with the Toughness and Saves.

You could have a Tank like T:10/9/8, Sv:2+/3+/4+ for Front/Side/Rear.

Not that it's necessary or wanted, but you could.

 CrashGordon94 wrote:
Thinking of it, you could have facing with the Toughness and Saves.

You could have a Tank like T:10/9/8, Sv:2+/3+/4+ for Front/Side/Rear.

Not that it's necessary or wanted, but you could.

The rules we need but not the rules we want, lol.

 CrashGordon94 wrote:
Thinking of it, you could have facing with the Toughness and Saves.

You could have a Tank like T:10/9/8, Sv:2+/3+/4+ for Front/Side/Rear.

Not that it's necessary or wanted, but you could.

Only problem with this is that squadrons would feth it up with majority toughness rules.

 DoomShakaLaka wrote:

Only problem with this is that squadrons would feth it up with majority toughness rules.

Maybe that could be done differently then.

Then again, that's only if the vehicles in the squadron are facing different directions.

You target individual vehicles in squadrons. You ignore the other vehicles for the purposes of resolving shooting/assault.

blaktoof wrote:
The AV system makes little sense these days when there are wraithknights/riptides/giant MC that work at full efficiency until they are killed, and for some reason vehicles get stunned/shaken/ weapons blown off/immobilized instead of working at full capacity until dead.

makes no sense.

Well the same could be said about infantry (a monstrous creature is just a big infantry unit conceptually). If you wanted to be realistic, you would have infantry suffering injuries and losing effectiveness rather than straight up being removed as casualties.

It would require immense bookkeeping though.

Alcibiades wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
The AV system makes little sense these days when there are wraithknights/riptides/giant MC that work at full efficiency until they are killed, and for some reason vehicles get stunned/shaken/ weapons blown off/immobilized instead of working at full capacity until dead.

makes no sense.

Well the same could be said about infantry (a monstrous creature is just a big infantry unit conceptually). If you wanted to be realistic, you would have infantry suffering injuries and losing effectiveness rather than straight up being removed as casualties.

It would require immense bookkeeping though.

Not really. When Infantry take hits they usually go down straight away. an MC on the other hand could conceivably lose limbs, take hits to vital muscles and organs, have weapons blown off, etc.

Theres a lot of good suggestions for vehicle rules in this thread. Occasional flamey crap aside. I really, REALLY hope GW is reading this.

Alcibiades wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
The AV system makes little sense these days when there are wraithknights/riptides/giant MC that work at full efficiency until they are killed, and for some reason vehicles get stunned/shaken/ weapons blown off/immobilized instead of working at full capacity until dead.

makes no sense.

Well the same could be said about infantry (a monstrous creature is just a big infantry unit conceptually). If you wanted to be realistic, you would have infantry suffering injuries and losing effectiveness rather than straight up being removed as casualties.

It would require immense bookkeeping though.

You already are with casualty-removal though. Casualties are reducing shots, possibly reducing Majority Stats (for mixed-model units), removing Special Weapons and other Wargear-based effects, so forth and so on.

Theres a lot of good suggestions for vehicle rules in this thread. Occasional flamey crap aside. I really, REALLY hope GW is reading this.

Oh, you sweet, summer child...

 Red Marine wrote:
Theres a lot of good suggestions for vehicle rules in this thread. Occasional flamey crap aside. I really, REALLY hope GW is reading this.

That's highly unlikely.

As in its probably more likely for me to win the lottery while being attacked by a shark while simultaneously being struck by lightnin...twice.

Besides everyone knows GW execs don't know how to read.

 Red Marine wrote:
Theres a lot of good suggestions for vehicle rules in this thread. Occasional flamey crap aside. I really, REALLY hope GW is reading this.

Yeah, in my experience, if anyone at GW is reading this, they're keeping a list of things NOT to fix. Actual changes in 8th edition, whenever it comes, will be determined by a random rule generator, as per tradition.

Rule that worked fine? BROKEN and CLUNKY. Unit type that didn't need help? SUDDENLY OVERPOWERED. Rule everyone hated? HERE TO STAY. Rule that didn't make sense? NOW EVEN WORSE.

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:

 Red Marine wrote:
Theres a lot of good suggestions for vehicle rules in this thread. Occasional flamey crap aside. I really, REALLY hope GW is reading this.

Yeah, in my experience, if anyone at GW is reading this, they're keeping a list of things NOT to fix. Actual changes in 8th edition, whenever it comes, will be determined by a random rule generator, as per tradition.

Rule that worked fine? BROKEN and CLUNKY. Unit type that didn't need help? SUDDENLY OVERPOWERED. Rule everyone hated? HERE TO STAY. Rule that didn't make sense? NOW EVEN WORSE.

As is tradition.

The problem is not the amount of hull points etc a vehicle as.

The problem is that once you don't any left the vehicle is wrecked, while in the fluff you read stuff about IoM vehicles badly crippled that still goes on to destroy their targets because of the machine spirit.

Hull points should stay the same, BUT, once you fall at 0 HP's, the vehicle isn't automatically wrecked, it still continues to work like normal, except that from this point on, when the vehicle is hit by a glancing or penetrating hit, you roll on the damage chart.

Hull points are just that, it represent the integrity of the Hull, you can have a vehicle completly stripped of his hull, or having it looking like swiss cheese, but that doesn't mean that the mecanics doesn't work, just that the vehicle doesn't have any protection for those mecanics.

Gives more "lifespan" to vehicles this way, without making them industructible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

blaktoof wrote:
The AV system makes little sense these days when there are wraithknights/riptides/giant MC that work at full efficiency until they are killed, and for some reason vehicles get stunned/shaken/ weapons blown off/immobilized instead of working at full capacity until dead.

makes no sense.

Could use the Age of Sigmar systeme for huge monsters, where the less Wounds a monster have during the game, the less effective it becomes.

 master of ordinance wrote:


Not really. When Infantry take hits they usually go down straight away. an MC on the other hand could conceivably lose limbs, take hits to vital muscles and organs, have weapons blown off, etc.

That's exactly what happens to infantry. Infantry do not in reality go down straight away. They get injured. They don't get shot by a bullet and either fall down or go on as if nothing happened.






Automatically Appended Next Post:
A monstrous creature is not in essence different from an infantryman. It's just bigger.

Weapons in 40k are a lot more lethal than in 2k.

 Furyou Miko wrote:
Weapons in 40k are a lot more lethal than in 2k.

Not the swords and autoguns, and arguably not the lasguns. Definetly not the bayonettes. And apparently not for multiwound models, which literally cannot be killed by one shot of something.

Anyway that's irrelevant; the point is that people do not get hit and then either die or ignore it. They get hurt.

Logically, REALISTICALLY[/b], if we have rules for a carifex getting its limb cut off by a reaper chainsword, we should have them for Guardsmen having their limbs cut off by choppas.

I am not recommending this rule, which would be really bad. Just pointing out that the wounds/hull points mechanic is unrealistic for everything[b], not just vehicles.