Hi all, I've read in the past the suggestion that vehicles should have armour saves but haven't actually seen some written out rules that could be tried so I thought I'd give it a go.

I think the general consensus is that vehicles just aren't as survivable as they should be especially in comparison with monstrous creatures. This is down to a number of factors including low number of hull points compared to wounds for similar sized/costed models, complete lack of armour saves, possibility of being one shot killed (although this is mitigated by the 7th ed damage chart) and the general proliferation of med-high strength multishot weaponry.
The last point I think is the main problem, noone really minds when a lascannon or multimelta damages their tank, thats what they do, it's there job, it's why the opponent paid points for them. But when the opponent turns his multishot anti-infantry weapon on your tanks and just glances them to death through weight of dice it just doesn't feel right to me.

When the AV system was introduced it worked because most anti-infantry firepower was in the S4-5 range which AV made most vehicles functionally immune to but in 7th edition we are increasingly seeing basic anti-infantry weapons in the S6-7 range with multiple shots but vehicles have no increased protection against such weapons that aren't really designed to hurt them.

Introducing a simple way to assign an armour save to all vehicles in the game will hopefully up their survivability against general weight of fire whilst still making them vulnerable to weapons designed to hurt them.

As I said this has likely been done before and I maybe borrowing ideas from previous posters, if so thankyou for the help.

Work out the combined total armour value of the vehicle by adding together it's front, side and rear AV values then adding an addition +2 if the vehicle is a tank (or +1 if it is a walker) and then consult the chart below:
AV: 30 = 6+ armour save
AV: 31-33 = 5+ armour save
AV: 34-36 = 4+ armour save
AV: 37-41 = 3+ armour save
AV: 42+ = 2+ armour save

Vehicle armour saves cannot be taken against hits inflicted from the haywire special rule.

I've tried to make it so most main battle tanks have a 3+ meaning that actual antitank weapons are needed, only the most heavily armoured vehicles should have a 2+.
The main things that miss out are eldar grav tanks and the lighter marine tanks like predators and vindicators who only get a 4+, changing 36 AV to give a 3+ would fix this but also remove the main targets of things like autocannon which are actually anti light tank guns.

What do people think, does this make vehicles too powerful, does it help them much, would you change the save bands? Please let me know what you think.

Looks fine to me, honestly it wouldn't really change much for me and I can't think of anyone who has complained about such things.

This is a fairly popular debate, and I think that basically it's a good idea. Unfortunately, scaling the save based on the armor value doesn't really address most of the current problems. Light (AV10-11) vehicles still die to massed fire, and usually just as easily as they do now, since most spammable guns are AP5, with a few AP4 and AP6 examples. AV14 vehicles still mostly don't die except to Haywire and heavy anti-tank weapons (railguns, lascannons, bright/dark lances, meltas, etc).

I propose that all vehicles get a roll to discount hull point losses, that occurs after any saves they're permitted otherwise (so, it works like Feel No Pain). It would work on a 5+, 4+ for some really resilient vehicles, and be bypassed by any AP3 or better weapon and by Destroyer weapons (Even if worse than AP3). Penetrating hits still cause their damage chart results even if this roll is passed, but the vehicle doesn't lose any hull points as a result.

What if vehicle armor saves were made using 3d6, roll under AV? AP only affects the results of a penetrating hit.

The lowest armor save should be 4+. That way, weapons like autocannons and heavy burst cannons are effective, and things like scatterlasers and multilasers less so. Weapons with poor AP should really be completely useless vs vehicles, but that's a different can of worms. How much would it change things to say AP 5, 6, and - just can't hurt vehicles at all?

Martel732 wrote:
The lowest armor save should be 4+. That way, weapons like autocannons and heavy burst cannons are effective, and things like scatterlasers and multilasers less so. Weapons with poor AP should really be completely useless vs vehicles, but that's a different can of worms. How much would it change things to say AP 5, 6, and - just can't hurt vehicles at all?

I would assume we could exclude Haywire from the "things with Ap5 and below can't touch vehicles"

I think I would be better to replace the weapon armour interaction with one single method.
This would make balancing the game much easier.

If all models have an AV from 1 to 10.
And all weapons have an AP from 1 to 10.
We just compare the AV to the AP value to find out the save roll for the model.(Similat to how the WS vs WS chart works.)

Av/Ap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1........,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7.n,n
2.........3.4.4.5.5.6.6.7.7.n.
3.........3,3.4.4.5.5.6.6.7.7.
4.........2.3.3.4.4.5.5.6.6.7.
5.........2.2.3.3.4.4.5.5.6.6.
6.........1.2.2.3.3.4.4.5.5.6.
7.........1.1.2.2.3.3.4.4.5.5.
8.........d.1.1.2.2.3.3.4.4.5
9.........d.d.1.1.2.2.3.3.4.4
10.......d.d.d.1.1.2.2.3.3.4.

Stat values run 1 to 10 to give a decent basic range.All results are a D6 roll you need to succeed.

d results means 'Deflected,' you auto succeed and ignore effects that cause special damage.

7 result means you half the number of 6s rolled rounding down to count as sucesses.(Quicker than re rolling 6+ followed by 4+ for 7+ to hit .)

n means Not able to save.

So If we say a current vehicle with AV 14 has new AV 10.And a Las cannon has new AP 8.That means the vehicle saves on a 3+ vs a las cannon hit.
New AV 6 (old AV 10 and Terminator armour.) only get a 5+ save vs the same las cannon.

This idea give all models proportional saves vs all weapon attacks without using additional systems or modifiers.
But would require a complete re-write of the rules ...

I would say that having a Chart for the save might be over complicating things, I think its probably a lot more simple to have an equipment option to give vehicles a Invuln save, that way you have to pay for it, or take the "cheep" baseline version. Maybe even one or two levels of it, I.E. a 5+ and a 4+ version. That way its not "standard" on everything. Maybe the "beefier" vehicles like land raiders or other armys equivalents with it coming standard? Keep in mind some rare ones can take items already I.E. space wolves Dreds can take blizzard shields. this way that is still an improvement, and doesn't just negate their upgrade all together. This way the lighter ones can buy a options that make them survivable and beefy ones beefy.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
The lowest armor save should be 4+. That way, weapons like autocannons and heavy burst cannons are effective, and things like scatterlasers and multilasers less so. Weapons with poor AP should really be completely useless vs vehicles, but that's a different can of worms. How much would it change things to say AP 5, 6, and - just can't hurt vehicles at all?

I would assume we could exclude Haywire from the "things with Ap5 and below can't touch vehicles"

Of course.

Y'know, I'm usually not a huge fan of blanket bans, but OTOH, that's not utterly unreasonable. Weapons with AP5 or worse cannot damage vehicles, unless they have the Haywire, Armourbane, Rending, Lance or Melta special rules? Maybe only in shooting, possibly, to give armies with a fair bit of high-strength, but weak-AP, melee some kind of option?

jade_angel wrote:
Y'know, I'm usually not a huge fan of blanket bans, but OTOH, that's not utterly unreasonable. Weapons with AP5 or worse cannot damage vehicles, unless they have the Haywire, Armourbane, Rending, Lance or Melta special rules? Maybe only in shooting, possibly, to give armies with a fair bit of high-strength, but weak-AP, melee some kind of option?

Yes, only shooting, because in assault you can cut wires and jam wheels, etc.

But this gives real incentive to bring true anti-vehicle weapons. Now we just need to add multiple wounds to MCs from very nasty guns like lances, lascannons, melta, and heavy tank rounds.

Maybe "Heavy, Ordnance and Primary Weapons with S8 or greater inflict two wounds for each successful to-wound roll (saves taken separately) against models with Toughness less than their Strength, unless they have the Eternal Warrior special rule"?

That also makes weapons with moderate ROF but high strength (Typhoon/Cyclone missile launchers, Devastators with lascannons, Kabalite Trueborn with blasters, etc) do more against MCs or multi-wound characters with strong saves.

jade_angel wrote:
Maybe "Heavy, Ordnance and Primary Weapons with S8 or greater inflict two wounds for each successful to-wound roll (saves taken separately) against models with Toughness less than their Strength, unless they have the Eternal Warrior special rule"?

That also makes weapons with moderate ROF but high strength (Typhoon/Cyclone missile launchers, Devastators with lascannons, Kabalite Trueborn with blasters, etc) do more against MCs or multi-wound characters with strong saves.

Anything along those lines is fine. It's just a complete joke that a lascannon can potentially trash a land raider, but can only ever do one wound to T5 or higher.

I don't really agree on weapons with higher ap not being able to pen/glance vehicles. I think that is a little rough, I don't think its healthy fro the game to just say "any weapon below X ap can't hurt a vehicle". I stil;l say being able to take some sort of upgrade to geta invuln save or some sort of similar save is the way to go. Maybe have a specific low Ap (1-2) deny that save is the way to go.

I think it's perfectly healthy, because that's the way tanks actually work. You CAN'T take one out with an SMG. I think the only way to make the scatterlaser remotely fair is to make it so it can't injure vehicles at all.

Martel732 wrote:
I think it's perfectly healthy, because that's the way tanks actually work. You CAN'T take one out with an SMG. I think the only way to make the scatterlaser remotely fair is to make it so it can't injure vehicles at all.

I second this

Martel732 wrote:
I think it's perfectly healthy, because that's the way tanks actually work. You CAN'T take one out with an SMG. I think the only way to make the scatterlaser remotely fair is to make it so it can't injure vehicles at all.

To be perfectly fair, we are not talking about "sub machine guns" here. Im about to play logic to a wargame here, be ware, here there be dragons! (disclaimer)
http://warhammer40k.wikia.com/wiki/Bolter
http://warhammer40k.wikia.com/wiki/Bolter_Ammunition

Is just an example. I mean that is in all reality a fully automatic rocket propelled grenade launcher, and that is not even considering most of these light vehicles have viewing ports, hatches ext. Now yeah bolters are frustrating but the real problem is all that S6 or better in the game right now that can be shot at volume, as someone else said.

I think the answer is something simple and clean, as opposed to another chart, cus lets face it there are to many damn charts in this game as there is! I don't so much have a problem with S4 having a chance to glance A10 on a 6, given that its possible that that exploding round MIGHT punch a hole in the armor after all its "angry little brothers" hit it and weakened it. I think the real problem is that the pen chart has been passed up by the game and we need something more clean and simple for vehicles, Adding a save wold help if we keep the chart, but I think the real problem is the chart its self. It either needs a rework or removed and replaced with something more akin to wounds.

I know some might think this is too powerful, but make glancing hits only cause results of "crew shaken" instead of stripping a hull point. One, this mitigates the problem a bit of simply stripping hull points to easily kill vehicles. Two, this might encourage the use of actual anti-tank weaponry to make a comeback instead of mid-strength high rof guns that seems to be the current meta. Three, might help to redress some of the balance issues between monstrous creatures and vehicles.

*cough* dreadnoughts suck *cough*

 Dyslexican32 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I think it's perfectly healthy, because that's the way tanks actually work. You CAN'T take one out with an SMG. I think the only way to make the scatterlaser remotely fair is to make it so it can't injure vehicles at all.

To be perfectly fair, we are not talking about "sub machine guns" here. Im about to play logic to a wargame here, be ware, here there be dragons! (disclaimer)
http://warhammer40k.wikia.com/wiki/Bolter
http://warhammer40k.wikia.com/wiki/Bolter_Ammunition

Is just an example. I mean that is in all reality a fully automatic rocket propelled grenade launcher, and that is not even considering most of these light vehicles have viewing ports, hatches ext. Now yeah bolters are frustrating but the real problem is all that S6 or better in the game right now that can be shot at volume, as someone else said.

I think the answer is something simple and clean, as opposed to another chart, cus lets face it there are to many damn charts in this game as there is! I don't so much have a problem with S4 having a chance to glance A10 on a 6, given that its possible that that exploding round MIGHT punch a hole in the armor after all its "angry little brothers" hit it and weakened it. I think the real problem is that the pen chart has been passed up by the game and we need something more clean and simple for vehicles, Adding a save wold help if we keep the chart, but I think the real problem is the chart its self. It either needs a rework or removed and replaced with something more akin to wounds.

It's a submachine gun equivalent. I don't care about the fluff. The whole rocket ammo thing is dumb anyway. Bolters should not be harming vehicles, in my view. Again, I ignore the fluff because it's stupid. Only the math matters to me.

Does the fluff say that Eldar stomp all over everyone? Yet, the game says they do. So the fluff can go die in a hole.

Martel732 wrote:
How much would it change things to say AP 5, 6, and - just can't hurt vehicles at all?

RIP Tyranids. Our best guns are AP-, there's very little AP4, and the only AP2 iirc is the Rupture Cannon, which is terrible. The only way to kill vehicles would be to march MCs into melee or run up some Rending Claws.

 KharnsRightHand wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
How much would it change things to say AP 5, 6, and - just can't hurt vehicles at all?

RIP Tyranids. Our best guns are AP-, there's very little AP4, and the only AP2 iirc is the Rupture Cannon, which is terrible. The only way to kill vehicles would be to march MCs into melee or run up some Rending Claws.

That's a problem then. Well, back to plan A, which is rewrite the whole game from the ground up. You can best believe that scatterlasers will a) be neutered compared to their current form or b) cost at least as much as an assault cannon.

A marines bolter is almost strictly anti-infantry. I have never read in the fluff where it has blow holes in tanks.

Yeah, but we can't throw the Nids under the bus totally.

Martel732 wrote:
Yeah, but we can't throw the Nids under the bus totally.

Edit their shooting attacks so they have an AP? Why don't they have any AP?

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Yeah, but we can't throw the Nids under the bus totally.

Edit their shooting attacks so they have an AP? Why don't they have any AP?

12 twin-linked S6 shots at BS4 is pretty good as it is, making it AP5 or so would be pretty brutal. Not that things like scatterlasers aren't already, but we don't really need to continue that power creep.

 KharnsRightHand wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Yeah, but we can't throw the Nids under the bus totally.

Edit their shooting attacks so they have an AP? Why don't they have any AP?

12 twin-linked S6 shots at BS4 is pretty good as it is, making it AP5 or so would be pretty brutal. Not that things like scatterlasers aren't already, but we don't really need to continue that power creep.

Make it AP4... Tada. It now can touch vehicles...

Here is another idea I mentioned in a similar thread some time back:

Instead of figuring out how to translate vehicle armor values into saves, why not eliminate the ability for glancing hits to strip hull points and create a new special rule called Glancing that can be applied to models and weapons?

Glancing - if a model with this special rule, or using a weapon with this special rule, matches the armor value of a vehicle on a armor penetration roll, a "Glancing Hit" is scored. The vehicle loses a hull point, but no roll is made on the Vehicle Damage Chart.

MCs/GMCs/Walkers automatically get the Glancing special rule, as do heavy and ordinance weapons. Glancing can also be applied to weapons like Gauss that fit the fluff.

 EnTyme wrote:
Here is another idea I mentioned in a similar thread some time back:

Instead of figuring out how to translate vehicle armor values into saves, why not eliminate the ability for glancing hits to strip hull points and create a new special rule called Glancing that can be applied to models and weapons?

Glancing - if a model with this special rule, or using a weapon with this special rule, matches the armor value of a vehicle on a armor penetration roll, a "Glancing Hit" is scored. The vehicle loses a hull point, but no roll is made on the Vehicle Damage Chart.

MCs/GMCs/Walkers automatically get the Glancing special rule, as do heavy and ordinance weapons. Glancing can also be applied to weapons like Gauss that fit the fluff.

No no no no no no no no. Scatter lasers are even better if you do that.

This is how you fix vehicles. Quoted from another thread just like this one.

In detail, you remove the unit type MC and Vehicle, replaced by some other word...lets call it a Construct. Now you add two additional USRs; Mechanical and Biological. You assign those to each Construct based on what they are; Nids and other creatures like the DE monstrosities become Biological, while Riptides, DreadKnights, and tanks all become Mechanical.

Both of the USRs simply denote what weapon types affect them more. Poison, for example, would only have an effect on Biological Constructs, while Armourbane and Melta would only affect those with the Mechanical USR.

The advantages of turning all vehicles into MCs are many. Its easier to balance using one mechanic, its easier to remember and learn, its fluffier (why is poison hurting a Riptide?) and offers more options for vehicles. Now when you design a vehicle, its durability can be determined by a combination of T, Sv, and W, instead of just AV and HP. A Leman Russ can now be something like T9/3+/5W...or whatever. Point is, you have tonnes of options for making a vehicle the exact kind of durable you want it to be.

The details can be ironed out on a unit by unit basis, and point costs will shift, maybe dramatically, but it pretty much solves all the issues with vehicles and MCs. You can even incorporate facings by having multiple T values, just like AV.

 Blacksails wrote:
This is how you fix vehicles. Quoted from another thread just like this one.

In detail, you remove the unit type MC and Vehicle, replaced by some other word...lets call it a Construct. Now you add two additional USRs; Mechanical and Biological. You assign those to each Construct based on what they are; Nids and other creatures like the DE monstrosities become Biological, while Riptides, DreadKnights, and tanks all become Mechanical.

Both of the USRs simply denote what weapon types affect them more. Poison, for example, would only have an effect on Biological Constructs, while Armourbane and Melta would only affect those with the Mechanical USR.

The advantages of turning all vehicles into MCs are many. Its easier to balance using one mechanic, its easier to remember and learn, its fluffier (why is poison hurting a Riptide?) and offers more options for vehicles. Now when you design a vehicle, its durability can be determined by a combination of T, Sv, and W, instead of just AV and HP. A Leman Russ can now be something like T9/3+/5W...or whatever. Point is, you have tonnes of options for making a vehicle the exact kind of durable you want it to be.

The details can be ironed out on a unit by unit basis, and point costs will shift, maybe dramatically, but it pretty much solves all the issues with vehicles and MCs. You can even incorporate facings by having multiple T values, just like AV.

That leaves more questions than it answers

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

That leaves more questions than it answers

Then ask away.

If you're looking for a blanket formula to apply to existing units, it can't and frankly shouldn't be done. If you're confused about the concept, I'm happy to elaborate.

 Blacksails wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

That leaves more questions than it answers

Then ask away.

If you're looking for a blanket formula to apply to existing units, it can't and frankly shouldn't be done. If you're confused about the concept, I'm happy to elaborate.

It can be done with minor tweaks like removing stupid MCs (Riptide, Stormsurge, DreadKnight, etc.) and making them walkers. Make certain guns do additional wounds to MCs and make AP5-6 weapons unable to harm vehicles.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

That leaves more questions than it answers

Then ask away.

If you're looking for a blanket formula to apply to existing units, it can't and frankly shouldn't be done. If you're confused about the concept, I'm happy to elaborate.

It can be done with minor tweaks like removing stupid MCs (Riptide, Stormsurge, DreadKnight, etc.) and making them walkers. Make certain guns do additional wounds to MCs and make AP5-6 weapons unable to harm vehicles.

Which then raises questions of which are MCs and which are walkers (wraith constructs?), and which guns do additional wounds, how, and adjusting their balance, and justifying AP5 and 6 weapons as unable to harm and balancing them appropriately.

 Blacksails wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

That leaves more questions than it answers

Then ask away.

If you're looking for a blanket formula to apply to existing units, it can't and frankly shouldn't be done. If you're confused about the concept, I'm happy to elaborate.

It can be done with minor tweaks like removing stupid MCs (Riptide, Stormsurge, DreadKnight, etc.) and making them walkers. Make certain guns do additional wounds to MCs and make AP5-6 weapons unable to harm vehicles.

Which then raises questions of which are MCs and which are walkers (wraith constructs?), and which guns do additional wounds, how, and adjusting their balance, and justifying AP5 and 6 weapons as unable to harm and balancing them appropriately.

We all know the who the fake MCs are: Riptide, Castellan robot, Stormsurge, Wraithknight, Wraithlord, Dreadknight...

Which guns? Lance, Melta, Armourbane, Ordinance, Primary weapon, Probably S10

AP5 and 6 weapons are usually carried by the rank and file. I shouldn't be able to shoot through a rhino with a bolter or a scatterlaser because they are low armour penetration weapons. Why would a glance from a bolter or a scatterlaser hurt rhino?

Why shouldn't a glance from S6 weaponry hurt a lightly armoured vehicle? It should at the very least affect it in some way. I don't see how a S5 AP3 gun should be allowed to hurt a Rhino, but a S6 AP6 one shouldn't. It also affects krak grenades, which hurts a lot of armies last ditch anti-tank.

Why should S10 get extra damage? What about S9, that's pretty strong too, normally reserved for dedicated anti-tank guns like Lascannons. Why should armourbane do additional wounds to MCs when we already have fleshbane for that representation? Same thing for all the others. You'd just make MCs that much weaker if they're affected by all the USRs that deal extra damage in addition to all the anti-vehicle USRs.

Fake MCs could probably get to a generally agreed upon consensus, but it raises the question of why not have a single unifying mechanic for all large gribblies. As my first post pointed out, there a numerous benefits.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:


Which guns? Lance, Melta, Armourbane, Ordinance, Primary weapon, Probably S10

Ordanance maybe, Str10 maybe, but the others? First off primary weapons are too common to be able to do so much damage to a mc, secondly fleshbane is already there to be the armourbane of mc's.

Personally I don't think you should start giving weapons the ability to remove multiple wounds otherwise things like daemon princes would only be able to take two hits. No 200-300pt model should be able to be killed in two shots.

 mrhappyface wrote:


Personally I don't think you should start giving weapons the ability to remove multiple wounds otherwise things like daemon princes would only be able to take two hits. No 200-300pt model should be able to be killed in two shots.

Which, funny enough, is what can theoretically happen with vehicles, which is why I propose they adopt the MC rules to prevent that.

 Blacksails wrote:
Why shouldn't a glance from S6 weaponry hurt a lightly armoured vehicle? It should at the very least affect it in some way. I don't see how a S5 AP3 gun should be allowed to hurt a Rhino, but a S6 AP6 one shouldn't. It also affects krak grenades, which hurts a lot of armies last ditch anti-tank.

Why should S10 get extra damage? What about S9, that's pretty strong too, normally reserved for dedicated anti-tank guns like Lascannons. Why should armourbane do additional wounds to MCs when we already have fleshbane for that representation? Same thing for all the others. You'd just make MCs that much weaker if they're affected by all the USRs that deal extra damage in addition to all the anti-vehicle USRs.

Fake MCs could probably get to a generally agreed upon consensus, but it raises the question of why not have a single unifying mechanic for all large gribblies. As my first post pointed out, there a numerous benefits.

Because STR and AP get conflated in GW's bs system. AP 6 means that it can't penetrate a frickin flak vest on a guardsmen. (The fact that the vest only functions 33% of the time is irrelevant here) So it can totally disable a TANK. Sure.

 Blacksails wrote:
Why shouldn't a glance from S6 weaponry hurt a lightly armoured vehicle? It should at the very least affect it in some way. I don't see how a S5 AP3 gun should be allowed to hurt a Rhino, but a S6 AP6 one shouldn't. It also affects krak grenades, which hurts a lot of armies last ditch anti-tank.

Lets say I have an air cannon and I fire a bowling ball at 100mph. Now that bowling ball would kill a human but it wouldn't do squat to a vehicle with reinforced armour. Ap3 represents a gun that shoots through power armour, which mind you, is extremely durable to small arms fire. So if your gun can shoot through that, it can shoot through a vehicle. Krak grenades are also Ap4 so nice try.

Why should S10 get extra damage? What about S9, that's pretty strong too, normally reserved for dedicated anti-tank guns like Lascannons. Why should armourbane do additional wounds to MCs when we already have fleshbane for that representation? Same thing for all the others. You'd just make MCs that much weaker if they're affected by all the USRs that deal extra damage in addition to all the anti-vehicle USRs.

Or we can get rid of the MCs that aren't MCs and then we toss the idea of multi-wounding out the window.

Fake MCs could probably get to a generally agreed upon consensus, but it raises the question of why not have a single unifying mechanic for all large gribblies. As my first post pointed out, there a numerous benefits.

Why? Because tanks don't have a toughness, they have armour and therefore, are subjected to being different.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blacksails wrote:

 mrhappyface wrote:


Personally I don't think you should start giving weapons the ability to remove multiple wounds otherwise things like daemon princes would only be able to take two hits. No 200-300pt model should be able to be killed in two shots.

Which, funny enough, is what can theoretically happen with vehicles, which is why I propose they adopt the MC rules to prevent that.

Yes, I would love to see a Land raider with a GMC stat line. And you thought riptides were bad.

Land Raiders at least have old school weapons that don't really hurt. WKs have D-cannons.

Martel732 wrote:

Because STR and AP get conflated in GW's bs system. AP 6 means that it can't penetrate a frickin flak vest on a guardsmen. (The fact that the vest only functions 33% of the time is irrelevant here) So it can totally disable a TANK. Sure.

Then what does a S10 AP- weapon mean? Under this theoretical system, we'd have a weapon that would deal multiple wounds (potentially, if failed armour save) against a giant MC, but could do quite literally nothing against a sentinel.

Seems odd right?

I get that GW's system is frankly moronic, but we have what we have if we keep most of the core rules the same. That being the case, high strength low AP weaponry may not be penetrating in the conventional sense, but could be boring through something over time, or causing other significant surface damage, or at the very least, potentially shaking the crew or forcing them to abandon the vehicle (another way of looking at the destroyed result is as a morale collapse of the crew, which has real world and in fluff paralells).

Then the scatterlaser needs to get a lot more expensive. Yesterday. Like 25pts a gun expensive. And that's still a bargain.

 Blacksails wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

Because STR and AP get conflated in GW's bs system. AP 6 means that it can't penetrate a frickin flak vest on a guardsmen. (The fact that the vest only functions 33% of the time is irrelevant here) So it can totally disable a TANK. Sure.

Then what does a S10 AP- weapon mean? Under this theoretical system, we'd have a weapon that would deal multiple wounds (potentially, if failed armour save) against a giant MC, but could do quite literally nothing against a sentinel.

Seems odd right?

I get that GW's system is frankly moronic, but we have what we have if we keep most of the core rules the same. That being the case, high strength low AP weaponry may not be penetrating in the conventional sense, but could be boring through something over time, or causing other significant surface damage, or at the very least, potentially shaking the crew or forcing them to abandon the vehicle (another way of looking at the destroyed result is as a morale collapse of the crew, which has real world and in fluff paralells).

"Brother-Captain, our landraider is damaged!"

"Brother... That was just a krak missile, I can assure you-"

"IT SCRATCHED THE PAINT OFF! Abandon all hope!"

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

Lets say I have an air cannon and I fire a bowling ball at 100mph. Now that bowling ball would kill a human but it wouldn't do squat to a vehicle with reinforced armour. Ap3 represents a gun that shoots through power armour, which mind you, is extremely durable to small arms fire. So if your gun can shoot through that, it can shoot through a vehicle. Krak grenades are also Ap4 so nice try.

How does strength fit in all that though? You don't feel like its odd to have a S10 AP- weapon less able to hurt a vehicle than a theoretical S4 AP3 gun?

And yeah, forgot kraks were AP4.

Or we can get rid of the MCs that aren't MCs and then we toss the idea of multi-wounding out the window.

And toss all the other proposals of AP5/6/- also being unable to damage tanks?

Why? Because tanks don't have a toughness, they have armour and therefore, are subjected to being different.

Plenty of MCs have 'armour' by any sci-fi definition you want to use. Hence why they have an armour save. If you think of toughness as 'durability', it makes a whole lot more sense.

Yes, I would love to see a Land raider with a GMC stat line. And you thought riptides were bad.

It'd have a normal MC statline, and be balanced appropriately. It'd certainly make those vehicles a hell of a lot more useful than they currently are.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

"Brother-Captain, our landraider is damaged!"

"Brother... That was just a krak missile, I can assure you-"

"IT SCRATCHED THE PAINT OFF! Abandon all hope!"

Or some poor renegade in a russ who's never seen combat before and doesn't know the full potential of the armour loses his cool after getting pounded by autocannon fire.

Or some Eldar guardian bailing when some minor systems in his Falcon are damaged.

Or some Ork panicking when the blinky lights start flashing and worried the mek has rigged a bomb to explode when they get to the enemy.

Or any other combination of a bazillion possible factors.

This game it not a literal representation of the wording used.

 Blacksails wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

Lets say I have an air cannon and I fire a bowling ball at 100mph. Now that bowling ball would kill a human but it wouldn't do squat to a vehicle with reinforced armour. Ap3 represents a gun that shoots through power armour, which mind you, is extremely durable to small arms fire. So if your gun can shoot through that, it can shoot through a vehicle. Krak grenades are also Ap4 so nice try.

How does strength fit in all that though? You don't feel like its odd to have a S10 AP- weapon less able to hurt a vehicle than a theoretical S4 AP3 gun?

"Brother-Captain, our landraider is damaged!"

"Brother... That was just a high speed bowling ball, I can assure you-"

"IT SCRATCHED THE PAINT OFF! Abandon all hope!"

"This game it not a literal representation of the wording used."

Then use different wording.

Martel732 wrote:
"This game it not a literal representation of the wording used."

Then use different wording.

Which I proposed.

 Blacksails wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
"This game it not a literal representation of the wording used."

Then use different wording.

Which I proposed.

Which was kind of stupid. When does an ork get nervous about anything? If theres a light blinking, he'll smash it if he gets annoyed.

I also proposed some:

"Brother-Captain, our landraider is damaged!"

"Brother... That was just a krak missile, I can assure you-"

"IT SCRATCHED THE PAINT OFF! Abandon all hope!"

 Blacksails wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
"This game it not a literal representation of the wording used."

Then use different wording.

Which I proposed.

Which is fine. I'm not really THAT picky.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:


Which was kind of stupid. When does an ork get nervous about anything? If theres a light blinking, he'll smash it if he gets annoyed.

Not necessarily. Orks still care about krumpin, and they won't exactly be thrilled to know they're going to blow up before they get to chop up some 'umies. An ork isn't afraid to bail at high speed and make his way in on foot. Plenty of reasons for an Ork to abandon a vehicle.

 Blacksails wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:


Which was kind of stupid. When does an ork get nervous about anything? If theres a light blinking, he'll smash it if he gets annoyed.

Not necessarily. Orks still care about krumpin, and they won't exactly be thrilled to know they're going to blow up before they get to chop up some 'umies. An ork isn't afraid to bail at high speed and make his way in on foot. Plenty of reasons for an Ork to abandon a vehicle.

"Boss, oor Trukk is 'urtin'!"

"Calm down, ya git, dat was just a shiny light."

"But da wheels fell off! Abandon all WAAAGH!"

Sure.

*Edit* gak, unless it was expected I carry on in ork speak with more ridiculous scenarios.

Dropped the ball.

 Blacksails wrote:
Sure.

That represented an unrealistic scenerio though. No ork would ever abandon his trukk just because it has no wheels.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
Sure.

That represented an unrealistic scenerio though. No ork would ever abandon his trukk just because it has no wheels.

...If it had no wheels, its not going to be krunpin' anything, therefore, the Orks will get out to go krump things.

Unless you're saying the Orks would just sit around with their green thumbs up their asses.

*Edit* The point is to use your imagination. A destroyed result does not necessarily mean the vehicle is destroyed in the most conventional means possible. It can mean any number of things that renders the vehicle unusable for that particular time frame.

 Blacksails wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
Sure.

That represented an unrealistic scenerio though. No ork would ever abandon his trukk just because it has no wheels.

...If it had no wheels, its not going to be krunpin' anything, therefore, the Orks will get out to go krump things.

Unless you're saying the Orks would just sit around with their green thumbs up their asses.

No one ever said the trukk won't move after it lost the wheels. Do you know how ork vehicles work?

 Tactical_Spam wrote:


No one ever said the trukk won't move after it lost the wheels. Do you know how ork vehicles work?

While certainly a fun image imagining an Ork trukk lose all its wheels to a mine but continue to levitate to the enemy, even Orks are generally bound to some amount of logic. They make things work by believing they work, but they believe it works because it functions in a certain way. A trukk that ran on wheels still needs wheels or some sort of spinning, semi-circular, traction device.

I'm still trying to figure out what S6 AP6 MEANS. GW is so stupid.

 Blacksails wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:


No one ever said the trukk won't move after it lost the wheels. Do you know how ork vehicles work?

While certainly a fun image imagining an Ork trukk lose all its wheels to a mine but continue to levitate to the enemy, even Orks are generally bound to some amount of logic. They make things work by believing they work, but they believe it works because it functions in a certain way. A trukk that ran on wheels still needs wheels or some sort of spinning, semi-circular, traction device.

Imagine that it started flipping end over end until it eventually resembled a ball. Ball-trukk advanced towards the unsuspecting guardline. Trukk stops rolling then all the orks jump out and krump some 'eads.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
I'm still trying to figure out what S6 AP6 MEANS. GW is so stupid.

It represents a high rof laser weapon... Be it in scatter or multi variant.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:


Imagine that it started flipping end over end until it eventually resembled a ball. Ball-trukk advanced towards the unsuspecting guardline. Trukk stops rolling then all the orks jump out and krump some 'eads.

That is more entertaining than my floating trukk idea. Also a fun conversion idea for Orks.

Anyways, point being, its all an abstraction anyways.

 Blacksails wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:


Imagine that it started flipping end over end until it eventually resembled a ball. Ball-trukk advanced towards the unsuspecting guardline. Trukk stops rolling then all the orks jump out and krump some 'eads.

That is more entertaining than my floating trukk idea. Also a fun conversion idea for Orks.

Anyways, point being, its all an abstraction anyways.

Now that being said, do vehicles, if Ap5/6/- can't touch them, need a Ld value? Because I might get scared if people start spamming Lasers at me even if they don't pen my tank.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:


Now that being said, do vehicles, if Ap5/6/- can't touch them, need a Ld value? Because I might get scared if people start spamming Lasers at me even if they don't pen my tank.

Well yeah, which would open some fun options for more orders for all factions. Now you could represent different crews if you wanted, buy better commanders more readily, and actually have a proper use for the morale portion of the game.

Blanked give every vehicles with an AV a 3+ save.

Would be a very simple solution and stop a lot of the High str no AP weapons from being near as effective vs armor.

Also since you use armor or cover, most vehicles would benefit more from the armor save anyway.

How/Why should a marine/terminator be more resistant to damage than a combat vehicle.

Almost most real AT weapons are AP1-3 as is.

Also like this ^

I could see light vehicles having 4+ because autocannons should be very good vs light vehicles.

(All Ork vehicles only get 6+ saves... But don't tell them)

How about just giving vehicles a 2+ armour save against glancing hits? A penetrating hit is by definition a hit that has penetrated the armour, but a glancing hit should only have a slim chance at doing damage to a vehicle. This would make vehicles less vulnerable to mid strength high ROF weapons (scatterlasers, I'm looking at you) and encourage weapons like meltas and lascannons that could penetrate a vehicle, whilst weapons like autocannons would still be decently effective against light vehicles which they could penetrate.

 mrhappyface wrote:
(All Ork vehicles only get 6+ saves... But don't tell them)

Ork vehicles actually all get a 2+. Dey tinks deir truks is da best!

 EnTyme wrote:

 mrhappyface wrote:
(All Ork vehicles only get 6+ saves... But don't tell them)

Ork vehicles actually all get a 2+. Dey tinks deir truks is da best!

But they're made out of cardboard, quote "all Ork vehicles are made from cardboard, trust mrhappyface: he knows what he's talking about." See!?

Most of them are held together by duct tape, hope and rhino saliva, but the Orks "think" they are tough, so their psychic field thingy makes them tough.

Martel732 wrote:

 Dyslexican32 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I think it's perfectly healthy, because that's the way tanks actually work. You CAN'T take one out with an SMG. I think the only way to make the scatterlaser remotely fair is to make it so it can't injure vehicles at all.

To be perfectly fair, we are not talking about "sub machine guns" here. Im about to play logic to a wargame here, be ware, here there be dragons! (disclaimer)
http://warhammer40k.wikia.com/wiki/Bolter
http://warhammer40k.wikia.com/wiki/Bolter_Ammunition

Is just an example. I mean that is in all reality a fully automatic rocket propelled grenade launcher, and that is not even considering most of these light vehicles have viewing ports, hatches ext. Now yeah bolters are frustrating but the real problem is all that S6 or better in the game right now that can be shot at volume, as someone else said.

I think the answer is something simple and clean, as opposed to another chart, cus lets face it there are to many damn charts in this game as there is! I don't so much have a problem with S4 having a chance to glance A10 on a 6, given that its possible that that exploding round MIGHT punch a hole in the armor after all its "angry little brothers" hit it and weakened it. I think the real problem is that the pen chart has been passed up by the game and we need something more clean and simple for vehicles, Adding a save wold help if we keep the chart, but I think the real problem is the chart its self. It either needs a rework or removed and replaced with something more akin to wounds.

It's a submachine gun equivalent. I don't care about the fluff. The whole rocket ammo thing is dumb anyway. Bolters should not be harming vehicles, in my view. Again, I ignore the fluff because it's stupid. Only the math matters to me.

Does the fluff say that Eldar stomp all over everyone? Yet, the game says they do. So the fluff can go die in a hole.

You may not care about fluff, and think it can "die in a hole" however its kinda what ALL THE RULES AND NUMBERS ARE BASED AROUND! and yes eldar are extremely dangerous and lethal even in relatively small numbers. Now does GW always do a great job of balancing those numbers, that's is what people complain and debate about but that doesn't change the fact that the game rules are designed around the fluff. Saying you don't care what the fluff says is like saying "I don't believe in science so science is stupid".






Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also i have seen a couple posts talking about Str and AP treating them like they are mutually exclusive in if they can deal damage to something. It makes absolute sense that a weapon with high STR could glance/pen a vehicle even if it has a high ap5,6,-. That weapon that is Str 9,10 is still capable of doing a ton of damage. the difference between the weapons ability to do damage to a vehicle or a troop or MC or whatever is based on its STR that STR 10 AP - weapon can still damage a marine just like it can a tank, the difference is it will kill the marine out right (assuming he fails his armor save) where it will glance the vehicle, and has a chance to do damage to its external parts. I.E. weapons, treds ext. those shots NEVER have to pen its armor to do so!! so YES a bolter or bolter equivalent SHOULD be able to damage the weaker points on a low armor vehicle.

AP on the other hand is it punching thru that thick armor, ONLY AP 1-2 can pen the armor of a vehicle and there aren't many weapons with high enough STR AND AP to do that that aren't specifically designed to deal with heavely armored targets, Laz, melta, powerfists, hammers ect. The problem has NOTHING AT ALL to do with the strength of weapons like scatter lasers or others.

Now do I think vehicles need something to make them more resilient? Yes. I believe i said something about invuln saves yesterday, that was speaking without thinking, I had meant armor saves. I think an armor save would fix most of those issues. Although I am still ok with being able to purchase an invuln save for more heavily armored vehicles such as Landraiders and such. I will elaborate. on how that roll would look.

Roll to hit.
Roll to Pen.
Roll to save
if penned roll on the open chart.

That way your weapon had to hit it with enough power to actually do damage(just like wounding), then the vehicle gets its armor save( low AP weapons will STILL deny these saves just like melta, laz ext currently do. the weapons with higher ap can still only glance, and low ap can do much more catastrophic damage. This way you don't need to rework weapons from the ground up. I actually don't think there is anything wrong with most weapons in the game currently when it comes to STR and Ap is concerned (you can argue about D and points costs of specific weapons all day but that isn't the point here, that is a over all codex balance issue and not a game mechanics problem. ) so reworking weapons and how they effect things like MC's and such would throw off the games "balance" way worse then a simple change to vehicles.

Need to keep any change simple...thus no chart for different vehicles IMO.

Blanked if its got an AV 3+ armor save...monsterous creatures all effectively get an AV, its called the to wound roll, then they get to save if the weapon isnt low AP.

Same principle would make vehicles actually worth bringing again. Anti-tank weapons/low AP weapons will still be lethal as they will ignore the 3+ armor.

If you want to mess with lightly armored vehicles say if the vehicle is open topped it only has a 4+ armor save ,and add it to the open topped rule.

Damn I should be writing rules for GW lol.

So an armored Sentinel gets the same armour save as a Land Raider or Knight?

You joke about writing for GW, but that logic sounds exactly like what they'd be thinking at GW. Which isn't a good thing.

If you plan on going the simple route of simply adding an armour save, at least the OP had a respectable formula. I personally believe it should be dealt with on a case by case basis and use the time to adjust the over performing and under performing vehicles in the process.

An addition of Vehicle Armour Saves alone won't restore vehicles if there isn't a reexamining of several other rules.

In regards to what I would make the saves, I'd assign all vehicles a base save of 4+, modified as follows.

Model has the Tank type - improve Armour Save by 1
Model has the Heavy or Superheavy Type - Improve Armour Save by 1
Model has AV of 14 on 2 or more faces - Improve Armour Save by 1
Model is Open Topped - Armour Save is 1 point worse

An this is why GW would never do this, you guys want to make it to complex.

It has to be easy all vehicles 3+ save no matter armor, why because you were already protected by your AV and apparently it failed you...so the land raider is already not going to be making as many saves as a dreadnought........the AV will see to that.

So yes your big land raider is still cooler than the AV 12 dreadnought.

Then just add to open topped rule that all open topped vehicles are only 4+ armor save.

Also keep in mind even with a 3+ most things that kill vehicles are still going to kill them as they will be AP 1-3.....

All this would do is make vehicles slightly more survivable.

This isn't a question of what GW would do or if they'll do it; we all know they never will anyways, even the simplest changes. So if a bunch of people are planning on fixing something, they might as well fix it right instead of the easiest blanket solution that is still poorly balanced and doesn't reflect the fluff.

 Blacksails wrote:
This isn't a question of what GW would do or if they'll do it; we all know they never will anyways, even the simplest changes. So if a bunch of people are planning on fixing something, they might as well fix it right instead of the easiest blanket solution that is still poorly balanced and doesn't reflect the fluff.

I fail to see how adding a Armor save to vehicles is "poorly balanced". How is it poorly balanced? This effectively deals with most of those instances that where being complained about earlier in the post from the Str 5 and 6 weapons, without taking out the chance that they will do something in shooting at all against up to AV 11-12. They can still glance you just have a built in save against it, this makes your vehicles more survivable and more in line with MC's without just blanket making MC's and Vehicles the same.

Sure if you want to make the argument of how good a save they should get, thats fine i am not opposed to that, I would say probably most would be 3+, with beefier like maybe land raiders potentially being a 2+, and open topped, skimmers and maybe even flyers being 4+. But thats is a balance issue that could be debated. just saying simple is bad cus its simple isnt debating a point. its like crossing your arms and holding your breath. But give a reason to support your argument as to why not..

 Dyslexican32 wrote:


Sure if you want to make the argument of how good a save they should get

That's exactly what I'm saying.

I must have misunderstood, it sounded like you were against armor saves. So you would rather it be split up by vehicle types? I.E. Skimmers, tanks, walkers ext? I think that's a good way to handle it, gives them survivability but doesn't change how they work on any fundamental level.

 Dyslexican32 wrote:
I must have misunderstood, it sounded like you were against armor saves. So you would rather it be split up by vehicle types? I.E. Skimmers, tanks, walkers ext? I think that's a good way to handle it, gives them survivability but doesn't change how they work on any fundamental level.

I don't dislike the fundamental idea of armour saves on vehicles, and I admit I prefer my suggestion (though admittedly significantly more work, but I'd argue for better results), but if someone was to simply add armour saves to vehices, either a formula like the OP with some minor tweaks, or looking at every vehicle individually and assessing what it should have. I feel that the armour value range should more or less mirror the range we see on troops as well, so I'm not adverse to something like a sentinel or trukk get a 5+ or even 6+ save. Conversely, something like a Land Raider could be 2+/5++.

I'd leave LR vulnerable to krak missiles. I wouldn't put 2+ save on a vehicle.

Martel732 wrote:
I'd leave LR vulnerable to krak missiles. I wouldn't put 2+ save on a vehicle.

Technically speaking, even with a 2+ save, it'd still be vulnerable, as there's a 1 in 6 chance of failing the save.

Plus, I certainly hope you're not shooting S8 at Land Raiders in the first place if there's any other vehicle on the table.

I don't see a problem with giving some vehicles 2+ saves. Some MCs have them, and its a good way to say "This vehicle is fething impervious to anything". It also lets you assign a 2+ to something as durable as Land Riader, but then assign a 3+ to a BattleWagon for example as another vehicle with AV14. Helps differentiate the durability between vehicles.

 Blacksails wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I'd leave LR vulnerable to krak missiles. I wouldn't put 2+ save on a vehicle.

Technically speaking, even with a 2+ save, it'd still be vulnerable, as there's a 1 in 6 chance of failing the save.

Plus, I certainly hope you're not shooting S8 at Land Raiders in the first place if there's any other vehicle on the table.

I don't see a problem with giving some vehicles 2+ saves. Some MCs have them, and its a good way to say "This vehicle is fething impervious to anything". It also lets you assign a 2+ to something as durable as Land Riader, but then assign a 3+ to a BattleWagon for example as another vehicle with AV14. Helps differentiate the durability between vehicles.

I don't think MCs should have them either. When I updated vehicles, I'd get rid of 2+ MCs as well.

Missile launchers are already really bad. I think that anti-tank missiles should have a 16% chance of glancing a LR, not a 1/36 chance.

Martel732 wrote:


I don't think MCs should have them either. When I updated vehicles, I'd get rid of 2+ MCs as well.

At least you're consistent, but I feel that if we have armour saves up to 2+ on normal units, we might as well apply it where it appropriate. Why limit ourselves when there's plenty of ways to ensure an AV14 2+ unit is still balanced. Hell, the Land Raider is bad enough as it is, at least a 2+ would help out against anything that isn't a lascannon equivalent.

 Blacksails wrote:

Martel732 wrote:


I don't think MCs should have them either. When I updated vehicles, I'd get rid of 2+ MCs as well.

At least you're consistent, but I feel that if we have armour saves up to 2+ on normal units, we might as well apply it where it appropriate. Why limit ourselves when there's plenty of ways to ensure an AV14 2+ unit is still balanced. Hell, the Land Raider is bad enough as it is, at least a 2+ would help out against anything that isn't a lascannon equivalent.

Where i would tend to agree with MC's not having 2+ armor outside of maybe a rare one off circumstance which seems to be the case now, I can't even think of a MC with a 2+ off the top of my head, i don't play against nids hardly ever so im sure im just missing one. However the reason I don't have a problem with the more heavily armors vehicles having a 2+ is because most weapons that would specifically deal with them would deny that armor anyway and be just as effective as before, but might force people to make some choices on their weapons to have to deal with these vehicles.

My reasoning as well.

MCs with 2+? Riptide, R'Varna, Y'Vahra, Tyrannofex, Nemesis Dreadknight, at the very least.

Deleted, as post was basically what i said

i know i am in the minority, but i also don't think we should count FW models, as inclusion of them also introduces a whole slew of weapons we aren't accounting for in the normal game

Jefffar wrote:
An addition of Vehicle Armour Saves alone won't restore vehicles if there isn't a reexamining of several other rules.

In regards to what I would make the saves, I'd assign all vehicles a base save of 4+, modified as follows.

Model has the Tank type - improve Armour Save by 1
Model has the Heavy or Superheavy Type - Improve Armour Save by 1
Model has AV of 14 on 2 or more faces - Improve Armour Save by 1
Model is Open Topped - Armour Save is 1 point worse

I like this best, except that as Martel said, cap any vehicle save at 3+ to give krak missiles employment opportunities.

Further analysis:
Rhinos, ork trukks, and dark eldar Raiders wouldn't insta die to a min-size scatbike squad firing at front armor from across the field on average. (Good!)

Krak missiles, ork rokkits, and similar shots become more relevant, being strong enough to beat any vehicle armor save and connect with most armor values. Currently they are out of work as the immigrant high rate of fire crappy AP weapons have taken all the jobs. Cutting the damage of those guns in half/in thirds against armor could really salvage the situation. (Good!)

I would propose keeping the save against bad AP haywire guns. To me they are similar to 2+ poison rounds against MC's, which work fairly well even though the MC tends to get a save. The abundance of "alternate damage methods" for vehicles like haywire, lance, the D, etc. has done its part in assigning most high cost tanks to permanent shelf-patrol. I find haywire at least, to be disgustingly cheap and efficient. The heavier tanks running a 3+ would still be taking damage from the usual haywire volleys of 4-5 shots. (Perhaps a 6 could be rewritten to "pen hit no armor save" on haywire chart.) Meanwhile ghost arks, tauroxes, trukks, raiders, venoms and other similar vehicles would still be under full threat, at least from the dark eldar haywire, which is mostly AP4. (A very convenient number for this situation! Also makes sense that the heavy armored vehicles would be a bit resistant to electrical finagling, while the light armored and open-topped rides would have no real defense against it.)

With the above changes I think both vehicles in general and the currently neglected low rate of fire vehicle hunting weapons could make a comeback. --> Armies spending points on those reduces the amount of s6 spam.

Add on the "monster slayer" rule to a few very strong single shot weapons (ie lascannons and similar) that causes 2 wounds to an MC that fails his invuln/cover, and I think we've got a bright future ahead!

I would propose keeping the save against bad AP haywire guns. To me they are similar to 2+ poison rounds against MC's, which work fairly well even though the MC tends to get a save. The abundance of "alternate damage methods" for vehicles like haywire, lance, the D, etc. has done its part in assigning most high cost tanks to permanent shelf-patrol. I find haywire at least, to be disgustingly cheap and efficient. The heavier tanks running a 3+ would still be taking damage from the usual haywire volleys of 4-5 shots. (Perhaps a 6 could be rewritten to "pen hit no armor save" on haywire chart.) Meanwhile ghost arks, tauroxes, trukks, raiders, venoms and other similar vehicles would still be under full threat, at least from the dark eldar haywire, which is mostly AP4. (A very convenient number for this situation! Also makes sense that the heavy armored vehicles would be a bit resistant to electrical finagling, while the light armored and open-topped rides would have no real defense against it.)

I don't know that adding anything to haywire and suck are necessary, those are specifically designed to deal with vehicles as it is, and can easily take out that tank even with an armor save. i mean MAYBE haywire could get something added but i dont really think that's necessary.

Bright lances and dark lances would get 2 wounds vs MCs as well. I'd give the Tau Railgun on the Hammerhead 3 wounds, myself.

I think the contention is that haywire while not used often now, would be used more often, and is often cheap. So because the armies that have accesses tend to have plenty of access, keeping an armor save like with poison weapons (which i can see is a like-to-like argument) still have armor saves generally.

now tau firewarriors can take haywire grenades at 2pts a model. if you let a squad fun up to you because other threats nearby took fire instead thats 12 haywire grenades, 9 hit, 7 reliably wound, on a 3+ save it could reasonably die within 1 charge still. and that's tau firewarriors.

Martel732 wrote:
Bright lances and dark lances would get 2 wounds vs MCs as well. I'd give the Tau Railgun on the Hammerhead 3 wounds, myself.

Just add a rule called "Wounding(x)"

x is equivelant to how many wounds are dealt per failed save.

I really like those ideas, actually.

I'd give Monster Slayer (2 wounds on a successful to-wound roll) to the following:

Lascannon, bright lance, dark lance, meltagun, multimelta, fusion gun, fusion blaster, krak missile, starshot missile, battle cannon, supa-cannon, kustom mega-blasta, heat ray, conversion beamer, heavy rail rifle, eradication beamer, plasma cannon (not plasma gun/pistol), inferno pistol, fusion pistol, helfrost cannon, helfrost destructor

Then I'd give Monster Destroyer (3 wounds on a successful to-wound roll) to:

Neutron laser, railgun, prism cannon (lance mode), earthshaker cannon, demolisher cannon, laser destroyer, death ray, (Doomsday Ark cannon - proper name forgotten), void lance, orbital bombardment, thermal cannon

I'm sure there's some I've forgotten, but that covers the major bases.

 pumaman1 wrote:
I think the contention is that haywire while not used often now, would be used more often, and is often cheap. So because the armies that have accesses tend to have plenty of access, keeping an armor save like with poison weapons (which i can see is a like-to-like argument) still have armor saves generally.

now tau firewarriors can take haywire grenades at 2pts a model. if you let a squad fun up to you because other threats nearby took fire instead thats 12 haywire grenades, 9 hit, 7 reliably wound, on a 3+ save it could reasonably die within 1 charge still. and that's tau firewarriors.

I believe i misunderstood. i took as it you meant that they SHOULDN'T get armor saves against haywire. Because as i understand it, if you gave the vehicle and armor save they would already get an armor save. I believe Haywire are AP -

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Bright lances and dark lances would get 2 wounds vs MCs as well. I'd give the Tau Railgun on the Hammerhead 3 wounds, myself.

Just add a rule called "Wounding(x)"

x is equivelant to how many wounds are dealt per failed save.

Even better! I'll heartily second that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dyslexican32 wrote:

 pumaman1 wrote:
I think the contention is that haywire while not used often now, would be used more often, and is often cheap. So because the armies that have accesses tend to have plenty of access, keeping an armor save like with poison weapons (which i can see is a like-to-like argument) still have armor saves generally.

now tau firewarriors can take haywire grenades at 2pts a model. if you let a squad fun up to you because other threats nearby took fire instead thats 12 haywire grenades, 9 hit, 7 reliably wound, on a 3+ save it could reasonably die within 1 charge still. and that's tau firewarriors.

I believe i misunderstood. i took as it you meant that they SHOULDN'T get armor saves against haywire. Because as i understand it, if you gave the vehicle and armor save they would already get an armor save. I believe Haywire are AP -

Not all - depends on the weapon. The Dark Eldar and Harlequin versions are AP4, though haywire 'nades are AP -, usually.

Should vehicles get to overwatch? That seems like a likely issue...

Why add additional rules to deal with MC's? there are already rules that specifically deal with them why add new ones? Poison and monster hunter among them. And Grav also already deals with them efficiently. So why add MORE rules to just make MC's pointless. we will be in the same spot we are with Vehicles talking on a thread of how to "fix them"

 Dyslexican32 wrote:
Why add additional rules to deal with MC's? there are already rules that specifically deal with them why add new ones? Poison and monster hunter among them. And Grav also already deals with them efficiently. So why add MORE rules to just make MC's pointless. we will be in the same spot we are with Vehicles talking on a thread of how to "fix them"

Monster hunter... A rule that nobody has... And the only rule that speciffically applies to MCs.

Hey now, Predator Squadrons of 3 have Monster Hunter, so that's something.

Then there's the SW Formation...

So only certain, specific Space Marines get Monster Hunter in rare circumstances

 Dyslexican32 wrote:
Why add additional rules to deal with MC's? there are already rules that specifically deal with them why add new ones? Poison and monster hunter among them. And Grav also already deals with them efficiently. So why add MORE rules to just make MC's pointless. we will be in the same spot we are with Vehicles talking on a thread of how to "fix them"

Poison (gives saves) and monster hunter (too rare) generally don't cut. Especially vs GMCs. And the additional rules because MCs are way too good right now.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Hey now, Predator Squadrons of 3 have Monster Hunter, so that's something.

Then there's the SW Formation...

So only certain, specific Space Marines get Monster Hunter in rare circumstances

I bet you can count the amount of units that have/give Monster Hunter on your hands.

Yeah, there aren't many... Tau can get it, SM under some circumstances. Grey Knights?

jade_angel wrote:
Yeah, there aren't many... Tau can get it, SM under some circumstances. Grey Knights?

IG senior commanders can give it... Straken has it...