Hey guys,

So I'm toying round with an idea which was coined by Marksman224 in this thread by which the a unit must make a D6 check against the Armour Penetration value of their weapon when they use it to make a Glancing hit, the success of which allows the infliction of a Hull Point. Here's my revised version of the rule:

Initial Proposal:

When a model inflicts a Glancing Hit on a vehicle target, it must make an Armour Penetration Check.

Armour Glancing Check
Roll a D6. If the result is greater than or equal to the Armour Penetration Value of the weapon, then one Hull Point is inflicted.

-- If the Weapon has no Armour Penetration Value (i.e. is AP-), then it automatically fails the Armour Glancing Check and no Hull Point is inflicted.
-- If the Weapon has an Armour Penetration Value of 1 (i.e. is AP1), then it automatically passes the Armour Glancing Check and as single Hull Point is inflicted

Restrictions and Conditions
-- Under no circumstances whatsoever may the Armour Glancing Check be re-rolled.


NB: This proposal has been edited.

Here are my questions:

(i) As it stands, what do you think of this rule?

(ii) Should there be any other rules (Special Rules or otherwise) or circumstances which would allow the Armour Glancing Check to be passed automatically?

(iii) What would you change about this rule?

Cheers guys

Edit:

Alternate Proposal:

When a Glancing Hit is scored against a vehicle, roll a D6 with no modifiers against the Vehicle Damage Table and apply the result as normal.

NB: Under this proposal, Hull Points are not inflicted by Glancing Hits as a default, but instead can only be inflicted if multiple Immobilised Results are achieved.

That's rather interesting. I like it

 Valkyrie wrote:
That's rather interesting. I like it

Cheers

Interesting. It would help against the glance to death spam, and it does seem easier to implement than granting armor saves to vehicles, which was my idea.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Interesting. It would help against the glance to death spam, and it does seem easier to implement than granting armor saves to vehicles, which was my idea.

My thoughts as well. It always seemed a bit silly that I could glance an Ork Trukk to death using Chainswords on Tactical Marines.

I'm also working on giving vehicles armour saves in the form of an invulnerable save, but it always seems to get overly complex and a bit too powerful.

i'd rather glance just reduce the AV value of the side that got hit ( ok CC would totaly screw this up ) without removing HP

kambien wrote:
i'd rather glance just reduce the AV value of the side that got hit ( ok CC would totaly screw this up ) without removing HP

The only problem is that something like that opens itself yp to be abused too easily.

I like it, but it may slow things down a bit. I have been making glancing hits roll unmodified on the damage table and hullpoints only drop when a pen is scored.

That way most vehicles will die with three penetrating hits, but glances require a lot of luck to actually kill a vehicle.

It slows things down a hair, but I think that's OK.

Lythrandire: my objection to that version would be that it lets the air out of Haywire and Gauss. Necrons aren't hurting, exactly, but Gauss is a not-insignificant chunk of why. As for Haywire, nerfing that mostly serves to kick Tyranids and DE while they're down - AdMech, Eldar and Tau have lots of other ways to demolish vehicles.

However, the OP's suggestion leaves Gauss and Haywire as useful (though maybe say that Haywire always removes a hull point on a 4+ unless its AP is better?), while letting the air out of a lot of spamguns.

Scatter Lasers specifically remain somewhat scary because at S6, they can inflict penetrating hits on AV10-11, which will still sand off hull points quite rapidly, but it does let a big chunk of the air out. Imperial Knights now can almost ignore them - you'll be fishing for sixes twice. (40 shots inflict on average .73 HP of damage under this system, assuming no cover. Even Night Fighting alone reduces this to near nothing)

How about glancing hits only remove a hp on a 4+?

jade_angel wrote:Scatter Lasers specifically remain somewhat scary because at S6, they can inflict penetrating hits on AV10-11, which will still sand off hull points quite rapidly, but it does let a big chunk of the air out. Imperial Knights now can almost ignore them - you'll be fishing for sixes twice. (40 shots inflict on average .73 HP of damage under this system, assuming no cover. Even Night Fighting alone reduces this to near nothing)

I'm not familiar with the profiles of Scatter Lasers and am not particularly familiar with Knight profiles. What's the profile of a Scatter Laser, and what is the typical AV of a Knight?

Martel732 wrote:How about glancing hits only remove a hp on a 4+?

I think that's a little bit too simple and misses the point a little bit. I believe that part of the premise of being able to take a hull point off a vehicle is based off two things:

(1) Having the Strength Value to punch through the target Armour Facing;

(2) Having the Armour Penetration Value to represent its ability to penetrate armour.

One of the core ideas behind adding this system to Glancing Hits is that the shot (through luck of the dice rolls) has not "had the strength to punch through the armour", so we turn to the AP Value to try and gauge whether or not it can inflict damage. Hence the Armour Glancing Check.

With the above in mind, a simple "Inflicts a HP on a 4+" kinda glazes over the point of this rule.

Scatterlasers killing IK is stupid. Although I guess in your system, scatterlasers aren't very good at passing the check.

Most Knights are AV13/12/12 (one of the FW ones is 14/13/13 but we'll ignore that outlier). The Scatter Laser is R36 S6 AP6 Heavy 4 - it's a problem because it can glance AV12, and can be had in numbers large enough to make that fairly reliable.

For example, 10 scatbikes (one scatter laser each) in side armor on a Knight, on average inflicts 4.4HP of damage IIRC, assuming no rerolls for the bikes and no saves for the Knight. But, with your change, it usually wouldn't even inflict 1HP (but still has an outside, hail-mary chance of getting lucky). This is more in line with what it should do.

I'd personally argue - even as an Eldar player - that they should be S3 with Shred, or possibly S5 without, but that's not the point at issue here.

On the flipside, if a heavy rail rifle gets lucky and scores a glance on a Land Raider, its AP1 will cause it to always pass the check, and always remove a hull point - also as it should be, IMHO. Like I said, other than a few minor quibbles, I like the idea. Most of the edge cases can be taken care of separately.

Why does giving vehicles armour saves like everything else become complicated?

If you allow the damage resolution system to cover all units . in a similar way, surely that would make things much less complicated than the multiple systems currently in use?(Not to mention all the special rules that try to add complexity back, but just add more layers of complication. )

Lanrak wrote:
Why does giving vehicles armour saves like everything else become complicated?

If you allow the damage resolution system to cover all units . in a similar way, surely that would make things much less complicated than the multiple systems currently in use?(Not to mention all the special rules that try to add complexity back, but just add more layers of complication. )

Can't say as I disagree, in principle. In practice, as a sort of low-effort quick-and-dirty patch, the OP's suggestion is pretty good. Long-term, yeah, I'd like a bigger retool.

jade_angel wrote:Most Knights are AV13/12/12 (one of the FW ones is 14/13/13 but we'll ignore that outlier). The Scatter Laser is R36 S6 AP6 Heavy 4 - it's a problem because it can glance AV12, and can be had in numbers large enough to make that fairly reliable.

For example, 10 scatbikes (one scatter laser each) in side armor on a Knight, on average inflicts 4.4HP of damage IIRC, assuming no rerolls for the bikes and no saves for the Knight. But, with your change, it usually wouldn't even inflict 1HP (but still has an outside, hail-mary chance of getting lucky). This is more in line with what it should do.

I'd personally argue - even as an Eldar player - that they should be S3 with Shred, or possibly S5 without, but that's not the point at issue here.

On the flipside, if a heavy rail rifle gets lucky and scores a glance on a Land Raider, its AP1 will cause it to always pass the check, and always remove a hull point - also as it should be, IMHO. Like I said, other than a few minor quibbles, I like the idea. Most of the edge cases can be taken care of separately.

Cheers. I also am considering the cases where the Weapon's AP Value is 1 (i.e. whether it auto-passes or simply succeeds on a 2+ as if it were AP2).

Lanrak wrote:Why does giving vehicles armour saves like everything else become complicated?

All I meant was that my attempts at creating a Vehicle Armour Save have become over-complicated, wordy rules (somewhat more 'complex' and wordy than the rule I'm proposing in this thread). But I think Vehicle Armour Saves are a topic for another thread.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

jade_angel wrote:
Long-term, yeah, I'd like a bigger retool.

Don't we all? haha

I like the idea myself.

I'm glad that you're still interested in this idea IllumiNini. I think having this rule just for glancing hits is a good idea. I think we might have been heading that way in my thread. The thing is that the AP stat is already modeled on a D6 with automatic passes and fails at either ends. I looks like we could make this stat do some more work in this game just by rolling a D6 against it directly. Glancing hits seem like an appropriate places to use it (maybe there are others). It would be a shame to waste a stat that could be so easily applied differently to other situations, in my opinion.

Marksman224 wrote:
I'm glad that you're still interested in this idea IllumiNini. I think having this rule just for glancing hits is a good idea. I think we might have been heading that way in my thread. The thing is that the AP stat is already modeled on a D6 with automatic passes and fails at either ends. I looks like we could make this stat do some more work in this game just by rolling a D6 against it directly. Glancing hits seem like an appropriate places to use it (maybe there are others). It would be a shame to waste a stat that could be so easily applied differently to other situations, in my opinion.

Props to you, as well. It was your baseline idea.


Here are a couple of things I'd like to add to the rule:

Additional rules that warrant an automatic pass of the Armour Glancing Check:

-- Haywire

Weapons with an Armour Penetration Value of 1 automatically pass the Armour Glancing Check.

Yep, concur with both. Only a few armies get haywire in volume (*), and of them, they either have other ways forward if Haywire were nerfed, or would be seriously hampered by a nerf, so not nerfing it makes the most sense.

And AP1 really does need to be better than AP2 in some way, and this is exactly the kind of way that makes sense.

(*) - and one of them, Tau, just had that volume FAQed out - not that it matters, because they get melta in large volume.

I remember someone raising an issue with Haywire grenades under this proposal. Is it not easy enough to just change the Haywire rule to: "on 2-5 the target looses a hull point, on a 6 the target suffers a penetrating hit"?

I think this is a great idea. Not perfect, but little is in 40k. Playtesting would tell us what tweaks if any would need to be made, and this rule could give back some of the durability vehicles should have without making them onerous or changing every vehicle in the game drastically. I don't imagine the extra roll overall would slow things down too much more than they already have been by other rules ect. This rule might actually let vehicles compete against MCs (though Tyranids need a boost, or maybe just a nudge).

This sounds interesting, and will ask my opponent next game to try it out.

So what I understand is that.
If a Glancing hit is scored, roll a D6. If the D6 result is equal to or greater than the weapon's AP, the hit removes 1 hullpoint.
AP - automatically fails.
AP1, Gauss, Rending, and Haywire automatically pass.

I hammer of wrath an imperial knight/carnifex/wraithknight/other high base str unit with HoW into a vehicle. Is it intended that their glancing hits not be able to pass the chack? I understand for stuff like jump pack troops, but knights and MC's should be a little different (not that they really need the minor buff though).

 Happyjew wrote:
This sounds interesting, and will ask my opponent next game to try it out.

So what I understand is that.
If a Glancing hit is scored, roll a D6. If the D6 result is equal to or greater than the weapon's AP, the hit removes 1 hullpoint.
AP - automatically fails.
AP1, Gauss, Rending, and Haywire automatically pass.

Yes, that's it. And if you end up play-testing it, I'd be very much obliged if you shared the results. My local group is pretty hard to convince in terms of using house rules, so I need to know if the rule works haha

 IllumiNini wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
This sounds interesting, and will ask my opponent next game to try it out.

So what I understand is that.
If a Glancing hit is scored, roll a D6. If the D6 result is equal to or greater than the weapon's AP, the hit removes 1 hullpoint.
AP - automatically fails.
AP1, Gauss, Rending, and Haywire automatically pass.

Yes, that's it. And if you end up play-testing it, I'd be very much obliged if you shared the results. My local group is pretty hard to convince in terms of using house rules, so I need to know if the rule works haha

The only change I'd make (have not play tested yet) would be that melee attacks (including Vector Strike and Hammer of Wrath) are unaffected by this change.

 Happyjew wrote:

 IllumiNini wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
This sounds interesting, and will ask my opponent next game to try it out.

So what I understand is that.
If a Glancing hit is scored, roll a D6. If the D6 result is equal to or greater than the weapon's AP, the hit removes 1 hullpoint.
AP - automatically fails.
AP1, Gauss, Rending, and Haywire automatically pass.

Yes, that's it. And if you end up play-testing it, I'd be very much obliged if you shared the results. My local group is pretty hard to convince in terms of using house rules, so I need to know if the rule works haha

The only change I'd make (have not play tested yet) would be that melee attacks (including Vector Strike and Hammer of Wrath) are unaffected by this change.

Why should this be the case?

Because it SEVERELY hampers the ability of assault to deal with vehicles, as close combat weapons are AP-, and the stuff that isn't is usually limited to one model in most squads, is expensive, and the stuff that isn't are rarer than big foot sightings. Particularly after GW threw grenades under the bus.

(i) I like the rule. Adds a fairly un-bloated mechanic to fix the hamfisted GW approach to HP.

(ii) Armorbane gives +1, Melta gives +1 (so yeah, most melta weapons auto-pass the check), Ordnance re-rolls 1's.

(iii) Rending I'm fine with being an auto-pass. It's representing how impossibly sharp the weapon is, allowing one to cut through a material they would otherwise not have the strength to do so. Gauss, however, shouldn't be a free ride. Crons have an easy enough time removing HP. If a space marine still gets his 3+ against a 6 to wound, the rhino still requires him to pass a 5+ roll to cause that glance. Maybe now we'll see cron players finally using their rather potent anti-tank weaponry.

I think it is a good rule, though I question Rend and Gauss getting a free pass, and AP - should probably score on a 6. I think the only rule that should get a pass on the Penetration roll is an attack that has Armourbane.

Luke_Prowler wrote:Because it SEVERELY hampers the ability of assault to deal with vehicles, as close combat weapons are AP-, and the stuff that isn't is usually limited to one model in most squads, is expensive, and the stuff that isn't are rarer than big foot sightings. Particularly after GW threw grenades under the bus.

On the flip-side, there's the following scenario:

A 5-Man MEQ unit with Strength 4 and an AP- Weapon charge a vehicle with AV10. Under the current system, it is quite easy for this squad to Glance the vehicle to death (especially given that most vehicles with at least one AV10 side have a maximum of 3 HP). A Tactical Squad punching an Ork Truck to death with Chainswords is a prime example of this (and the sort of scenario I want to avoid).

Stormonu wrote:I think it is a good rule, though I question Rend and Gauss getting a free pass, and AP - should probably score on a 6. I think the only rule that should get a pass on the Penetration roll is an attack that has Armourbane.

-- I question AP- still passing the test on a 6+ because then there's nothing that differentiates AP- from AP6, but there's probably a solution to that.
-- Rending I made an auto-pass because of the way the rule is defined in terms of adding D3 to the Pen result when a 6 is rolled. Maybe this should be the same sort of deal with Glancing Hits - Automatically pass the test if you glance on a 6.
-- Gauss was pretty similar reasoning to Rending. Because Gauss Weapons automatically glance vehicles on a 6, I didn't want to take that away from them by forcing an AP Check on them.
-- I agree: Armourbane should definitely confer and auto-pass.

 IllumiNini wrote:

Luke_Prowler wrote:Because it SEVERELY hampers the ability of assault to deal with vehicles, as close combat weapons are AP-, and the stuff that isn't is usually limited to one model in most squads, is expensive, and the stuff that isn't are rarer than big foot sightings. Particularly after GW threw grenades under the bus.

On the flip-side, there's the following scenario:

A 5-Man MEQ unit with Strength 4 and an AP- Weapon charge a vehicle with AV10. Under the current system, it is quite easy for this squad to Glance the vehicle to death (especially given that most vehicles with at least one AV10 side have a maximum of 3 HP). A Tactical Squad punching an Ork Truck to death with Chainswords is a prime example of this (and the sort of scenario I want to avoid).

Versus, say, the space marines chopping at the exposed driver and gunner? Or maybe using their strength to flip it over, or throwing a spanner in the engine block. I think some people take the whole "armor penetration" a bit too literal (like a lot of the game...). Yes, A knife won't penetrate through tank armor. Anyone with a brain stem can understand that. but vehicles aren't literal block of armor either, and when you have to kill something with terrible tools you just find more creative ways to do it.

Mechanically, the problem is that this decimates the options assault armies have to deal with vehicles. Hordes in particular (all of them sans Gaurd, anyway) are often stuck with half ass ranged anti-tank, so being able to overcome weaksause vehicles with normal troops is needed (I shouldn't have to explain what's wrong with requiring melee specialist units to deal with every rhino, chimera, and raider...)

I do not like it over all. It is adding an unnecessary roll to Glancing. If this was replacing the Penetration Roll, it would make more sense.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
I like it, but it may slow things down a bit. I have been making glancing hits roll unmodified on the damage table and hullpoints only drop when a pen is scored.

That way most vehicles will die with three penetrating hits, but glances require a lot of luck to actually kill a vehicle.

This is my preference. I would change option 7 to be just a Hull Point loss, but if the Glancing Hit does not add a modifier this is no longer needed as only a Penetrating Hit can still cause it to Explode!

Hull Point loss is still available to Glancing, but it requires Immobilizing first to get it to happen. And if Immobilizes from the same group of Shots or Blows can be considered "already" to each other, this aspect is well covered.

 Luke_Prowler wrote:

 IllumiNini wrote:

Luke_Prowler wrote:Because it SEVERELY hampers the ability of assault to deal with vehicles, as close combat weapons are AP-, and the stuff that isn't is usually limited to one model in most squads, is expensive, and the stuff that isn't are rarer than big foot sightings. Particularly after GW threw grenades under the bus.

On the flip-side, there's the following scenario:

A 5-Man MEQ unit with Strength 4 and an AP- Weapon charge a vehicle with AV10. Under the current system, it is quite easy for this squad to Glance the vehicle to death (especially given that most vehicles with at least one AV10 side have a maximum of 3 HP). A Tactical Squad punching an Ork Truck to death with Chainswords is a prime example of this (and the sort of scenario I want to avoid).

Versus, say, the space marines chopping at the exposed driver and gunner? Or maybe using their strength to flip it over, or throwing a spanner in the engine block. I think some people take the whole "armor penetration" a bit too literal (like a lot of the game...). Yes, A knife won't penetrate through tank armor. Anyone with a brain stem can understand that. but vehicles aren't literal block of armor either, and when you have to kill something with terrible tools you just find more creative ways to do it.

I see what you mean. In my mind, it was a way to nerf mechanics where weapons that clearly are not designed with taking out tanks in mind (e.g. Chainswords) can be used to do exactly that - take out tanks. That being said, I'd be willing to say this rule applies to Ballistic Attacks only (I just never thought of it the way you explained it simply because we're talking about dice rolls and miniatures on a tabletop haha).

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
Mechanically, the problem is that this decimates the options assault armies have to deal with vehicles. Hordes in particular (all of them sans Gaurd, anyway) are often stuck with half ass ranged anti-tank, so being able to overcome weaksause vehicles with normal troops is needed (I shouldn't have to explain what's wrong with requiring melee specialist units to deal with every rhino, chimera, and raider...)

Fair call.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:
I do not like it over all. It is adding an unnecessary roll to Glancing. If this was replacing the Penetration Roll, it would make more sense.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
I like it, but it may slow things down a bit. I have been making glancing hits roll unmodified on the damage table and hullpoints only drop when a pen is scored.

That way most vehicles will die with three penetrating hits, but glances require a lot of luck to actually kill a vehicle.

This is my preference. I would change option 7 to be just a Hull Point loss, but if the Glancing Hit does not add a modifier this is no longer needed as only a Penetrating Hit can still cause it to Explode!

Hull Point loss is still available to Glancing, but it requires Immobilizing first to get it to happen. And if Immobilizes from the same group of Shots or Blows can be considered "already" to each other, this aspect is well covered.

This isn't a half-bad idea I'll see if I can write something up to this effect.

If I were building the game from the ground up, vehicles would have an assault value for their armor as well, so it can be lower than the rear.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
II have been making glancing hits roll unmodified on the damage table and hullpoints only drop when a pen is scored.

That way most vehicles will die with three penetrating hits, but glances require a lot of luck to actually kill a vehicle.

I like this idea a lot. This makes glancing hits work how I think they should. Not getting inside to cause an explosion or kill the crew, but disorienting the occupants, and damaging exterior components like weapons, wheels, tracks, and legs.
It works well with the 7th edition Vehicle Damage Chart.

 Charistoph wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
I like it, but it may slow things down a bit. I have been making glancing hits roll unmodified on the damage table and hullpoints only drop when a pen is scored.

That way most vehicles will die with three penetrating hits, but glances require a lot of luck to actually kill a vehicle.

This is my preference. I would change option 7 to be just a Hull Point loss, but if the Glancing Hit does not add a modifier this is no longer needed as only a Penetrating Hit can still cause it to Explode!

Hull Point loss is still available to Glancing, but it requires Immobilizing first to get it to happen. And if Immobilizes from the same group of Shots or Blows can be considered "already" to each other, this aspect is well covered.

I also just realised something: This method does not involve any less rolling than my solution since you still have to make an unmodified D6 roll on the VDT for a Glancing Hit. So if it was an issue with simply rolling an unnecessary extra dice, neither solution is better than the other.

 IllumiNini wrote:
I also just realised something: This method does not involve any less rolling than my solution since you still have to make an unmodified D6 roll on the VDT for a Glancing Hit. So if it was an issue with simply rolling an unnecessary extra dice, neither solution is better than the other.

Not quite. The proposition in the OP would be adding a roll to completely nerf Glancing Hit and not be affecting the Penetrating Hit whatsoever.

While you are correct that there is no difference between the number of dice roll, the option in the OP is almost a second Armour Penetration Roll, for all intents and purposes.

 Charistoph wrote:

 IllumiNini wrote:
I also just realised something: This method does not involve any less rolling than my solution since you still have to make an unmodified D6 roll on the VDT for a Glancing Hit. So if it was an issue with simply rolling an unnecessary extra dice, neither solution is better than the other.

Not quite. The proposition in the OP would be adding a roll to completely nerf Glancing Hit and not be affecting the Penetrating Hit whatsoever.

While you are correct that there is no difference between the number of dice roll, the option in the OP is almost a second Armour Penetration Roll, for all intents and purposes.

So what are you saying, exactly?

So what are you saying, exactly?

I think he wants penetrating hits to be nerfed as well, or maybe neither nerfed. Hard to tell with some posters what they want or mean.

 IllumiNini wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 IllumiNini wrote:
I also just realised something: This method does not involve any less rolling than my solution since you still have to make an unmodified D6 roll on the VDT for a Glancing Hit. So if it was an issue with simply rolling an unnecessary extra dice, neither solution is better than the other.

Not quite. The proposition in the OP would be adding a roll to completely nerf Glancing Hit and not be affecting the Penetrating Hit whatsoever.

While you are correct that there is no difference between the number of dice roll, the option in the OP is almost a second Armour Penetration Roll, for all intents and purposes.

So what are you saying, exactly?

The proposal in the Original Post is basically the equivalent of adding a second Wound Roll to a Monstrous Creature, but only if you rolled the minimum to Wound. Or maybe another way to put it, Glancing Hits cause you a "reroll" of your Armour Penetration Roll. All that work could end up being nothing unless you have a really good AP weapon.

However, if Glancing Hits do not remove a Hull Point, but a roll on the Vehicle Damage Table, the Glancing Hit WILL have an effect (although, maybe not so much), but it will be difficult to just "Glance" a Vehicle to death.

While Saves often can remove all the "hard work" of getting a Wound involved, that is dependent on the owning player to do the work, and not attacking player.

I'm happy someone turned up with this idea 'cause I proposed it months ago just on this forum but got unnoticed.

To add to the discussion, think the units with tank hunter should have some bonus too.

 Charistoph wrote:

 IllumiNini wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 IllumiNini wrote:
I also just realised something: This method does not involve any less rolling than my solution since you still have to make an unmodified D6 roll on the VDT for a Glancing Hit. So if it was an issue with simply rolling an unnecessary extra dice, neither solution is better than the other.

Not quite. The proposition in the OP would be adding a roll to completely nerf Glancing Hit and not be affecting the Penetrating Hit whatsoever.

While you are correct that there is no difference between the number of dice roll, the option in the OP is almost a second Armour Penetration Roll, for all intents and purposes.

So what are you saying, exactly?

The proposal in the Original Post is basically the equivalent of adding a second Wound Roll to a Monstrous Creature, but only if you rolled the minimum to Wound. Or maybe another way to put it, Glancing Hits cause you a "reroll" of your Armour Penetration Roll. All that work could end up being nothing unless you have a really good AP weapon.

However, if Glancing Hits do not remove a Hull Point, but a roll on the Vehicle Damage Table, the Glancing Hit WILL have an effect (although, maybe not so much), but it will be difficult to just "Glance" a Vehicle to death.

While Saves often can remove all the "hard work" of getting a Wound involved, that is dependent on the owning player to do the work, and not attacking player.

After some further thought on it, I'm having a few misgivings about how this would work:

-- Glancing Hits [In the real world] don't always have an effect. They may just bounce of the armour and/or leave a light scratch. In this case, I feel comfortable saying that this concept can be reasonably translated to the tabletop via a rule or instance such as the one I'm proposing.

-- When looking at the results of the VDT, it makes less and less sense to me to say that a Glancing Hit can cause one of these effects without doing damage to the vehicle.
-- -- Take the most extreme example: The Immobilised Result. Logically speaking, how is a Glancing Hit supposed to immobilise a vehicle without actually damaging the vehicle?
-- -- Take another example: Crew Stunned. How is a Glancing Hit supposed to 'hit the vehicle with enough force' to cause this result without damaging it?

I mean, yes - under this new system, you can still glance the vehicle to death (with some luck) and yes - you're not always inflicting Hull Point damage, but this alternative rule seems to give Glancing Hits the ability to do things that they shouldn't be able to do without also inflicting Hull Points.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The Deer Hunter wrote:
I'm happy someone turned up with this idea 'cause I proposed it months ago just on this forum but got unnoticed.

To add to the discussion, think the units with tank hunter should have some bonus too.

I'll have to have a read of your thread. Maybe some of it will be relevant to this thread and/or inspire a change in this one.

As for the Tank Hunter Special Rule, I think that's fair.

With the proposed change to glancing hits I use, a glancing hit that tears off a tank tread won't necessarily affect the structural integrity of the whole vehicle. Same with knocking off a sponsor weapon or even blocking up a turret. These thing affect the vehicle but aren't causing the vehicle to be completely wiped out.

Since causing glancing hits is not the easiest way to kill vehicles with this system, single shot high power weapons become a more prevalent option. And since the hullpoint loss doesn't require high ap, the high strength high ap weapons (like heavy venom cannons) can still function as an anti tank weapon.

The reason I thought the proposed change may increase time is you roll all of the damage table rolls together unless the ap value is different. That and the addition of modifiers to the roll could cause confusion.

This system is already in place and is recognised within the game in general, so there's no need to add more rules bonuses to remember.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
With the proposed change to glancing hits I use, a glancing hit that tears off a tank tread won't necessarily affect the structural integrity of the whole vehicle. Same with knocking off a sponsor weapon or even blocking up a turret. These thing affect the vehicle but aren't causing the vehicle to be completely wiped out.

But in the current Hull Points system where we don't necessarily have a way of justifying part of the vehicle being destroyed (e.g. a weapon or the vehicle's tracks) without a HP being inflicted, that still means that your preferred rule has some holes.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Since causing glancing hits is not the easiest way to kill vehicles with this system, single shot high power weapons become a more prevalent option. And since the hullpoint loss doesn't require high ap, the high strength high ap weapons (like heavy venom cannons) can still function as an anti tank weapon.

Well both of our proposed systems make it harder for weapons with lower Strength and/or lower AP to cause Hull Point loss on a Glancing Hit (though your solution makes it significantly harder than mine). So even if (as suggested earlier in the thread) my rule is limited to Glancing Hits caused by Ballistic Attacks, it helps to reduce the AT capabilities if weapons that aren't necessarily designed to be AT guns while only making a minor nerf to existing AT guns (if they're nerfed at all by my rule).

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
The reason I thought the proposed change may increase time is you roll all of the damage table rolls together unless the ap value is different. That and the addition of modifiers to the roll could cause confusion.

The added confusion is why I tried to avoid numerical modifiers and instead said "If you fit one of these conditions (which is a list I'm hoping to keep small), then you automatically pass the test. Otherwise you roll."

You guys ever consider 2 damage charts, one for glances and one for pens? Given modifiers for AP it can get complicated but offers more detail. The drawback is it would take more time to resolve.

Modifiers:
No AP: -1
AP6: No modifier
AP5: +1
AP4: +2
AP3: +3
AP2: +4
AP1: +5
Open-topped: +1
Close Combat: +2

Glances:
0-3: Deflection
4-5: Optics hit (Shaken)
6-7: Crew wounded (Stunned)
8-9: Weapon destroyed (Wpn destroyed)
10-11: Track hit (1HP, Immobilized)

Pen:
0-3: Non-critical
4-5: Hull compromised (1HP removed, Shaken)
6-7: Critical penetration (1HP removed, Stunned)
8-9: Mobility kill (2HP, Immobilized)
10-11: Catastrohic kill (Explodes!)

Rending and Gauss incur an automatic 1HP loss.

In terms of simplicity though, the original proposal is pretty solid. Adding up all those modifiers could get really annoying in a bigger game.

Fair enough. We are both solving a problem.

Your solution lowers the amount of times a glancing hit does anything so people won't see it as the "go to" anti vehicle option it is now.

Mine allows glancing hits to modify gameplay without invalidating vehicle survivability. Which, again, makes glancing hits less effective at outright killing vehicles.

Main reason I went the rout I did was because in 5th ed a glance would almost never destroy a vehicle, but would cause other problems due to rolling on the damage chart. I liked that system and when you look at the current damage chart it is very close to the old one with a negative modifier. So I kind of went retro on it.

With my version of the rule, a glance will always matter. With the one in the op there is a chance the glance did nothing.

@Yoyoyo

I'd probably leave the AP bonuses as they are (AP 1 = +2, and AP 2 = +1, with the rest providing no bonuses) and then have a slightly modified version of your Glances Table.

I'd probably leave the current VDT as is with a few minor changes (such as additional HP on Immobilised results being removed).

It would be nice if there was more distinction for weapons like Krak Missiles, Grenades and Autocannons, which are ostensibly AT weapons at AP3/AP4.

Maybe you could roll your original glance save 1st, then roll on a glancing VDC.

Yoyoyo wrote:
It would be nice if there was more distinction for weapons like Krak Missiles, Grenades and Autocannons, which are ostensibly AT weapons at AP3/AP4.

It would be, but a larger scale of numerical values (e.g. Strength and Toughness have a range bigger than 1 - 10 such as 1 - 15 or 1 - 20, and AP values also taking on a larger scale etc etc) would probably do a lot better job or making that distinction than trying to make better distinctions within the current system.

Yoyoyo wrote:
Maybe you could roll your original glance save 1st, then roll on a glancing VDC.

Just as long as that Glancing VDT doesn't contain anything that would normal warrant the infliction of a Hull Point. For example, the Weapon Destroyed and Track Hit results on your Glancing VDT you proposed earlier should not be on that table, especially if we're making a separate roll for whether or not the Glancing Hit inflicts a Hull Point.

I like the idea of an AP-based "save" against glances, should tone them down a bit. To be honest I've been wondering whether we even need glancing hits at all; we could just as easily get away with penetrating hit or nothing, but that would require tweaks to vehicles, would make Land Raiders pretty solid again though.

StarHunter25 wrote:
Armorbane gives +1, Melta gives +1 (so yeah, most melta weapons auto-pass the check), Ordnance re-rolls 1's.

Do Armourbane and Melta especially need bonus treatment? An Eviscerator for example is AP2 already so a +1 would make it an auto-pass, same with Melta weapons which are usually AP1. I think they're already pretty well covered by their good AP and ability to punch through armour due to their bonus armour penetration dice. Likewise with Ordnance being able to re-roll the dice, I think these are all covered pretty well by their ability to penetrate instead of glance in the first place, and usually have solid AP anyway so no need for extra rules at all.

StarHunter25 wrote:
Rending I'm fine with being an auto-pass. It's representing how impossibly sharp the weapon is, allowing one to cut through a material they would otherwise not have the strength to do so.

I'm not sure I agree with this; Assault Cannons are Rending and I wouldn't call them "impossibly sharp", I'd say it's more representative of them getting a lucky hit on a weak spot and just blowing right through, whereas with melee weapons it's more about the weapon's ability to exploit a weak point like the joints in terminator armour or whatever. Rending already has a bonus to armour penetration which makes glances less likely in the first place, so again I'd say they don't need special treatment. Besides, Assault Cannons already inflict all kinds of hurt on light vehicles as it is, I think they'd be fine with a slight reduction, and with AP4 they still inflict 50% glancing damage.

StarHunter25 wrote:
Gauss, however, shouldn't be a free ride. Crons have an easy enough time removing HP.

Agreed here; Gauss weapons already have the advantage of being able to inflict glances even when they shouldn't be able to, and IMO they're a prime example of a weapon that glance protection should be aiming to help against. Not that I'm saying Gauss weapons are an ideal way to take down vehicles, but when they roll well it's frustrating to see a bunch of HP's disappear. The bonus is really that if your warriors have nothing else to shoot at then they can try their luck against a vehicle, as they might help another unit to finish it off faster.
The benefit of glance protection to me is that it makes vehicles tougher to glance to death for everyone, making Necrons an exception would be counter productive IMO.

@Haravikk:

So am I right when I interpret what you're saying as the following?:

Armourbane, Gauss, Melta, and Rending should not be on the list of Special Rules that automatically pass my proposed Armour Glancing Check.

 IllumiNini wrote:
<snippity>
-- Glancing Hits [In the real world] don't always have an effect. They may just bounce of the armour and/or leave a light scratch. In this case, I feel comfortable saying that this concept can be reasonably translated to the tabletop via a rule or instance such as the one I'm proposing.

<snip>

Responding to that, specifically - 40k seems to represent "hits" that don't actually do damage, that just bounce off, as failed armor pen rolls, not as glancing hits. I'm taking a bit of an educated guess, but the "glancing hit" category seems intended to represent attacks that hit hard enough to damage something, but did not actually pierce the armor, specifically excluding shots that just harmlessly donk off, leaving a scratch.

 Haravikk wrote:
I like the idea of an AP-based "save" against glances, should tone them down a bit. To be honest I've been wondering whether we even need glancing hits at all; we could just as easily get away with penetrating hit or nothing, but that would require tweaks to vehicles, would make Land Raiders pretty solid again though.

If the OP was an actual Armour Save for Glancing Hits, it could work, and I could get behind it. It would also allow situations where the auto-Glance from a Gauss Blaster would be more reliable than one from a Gauss Flayer.

From how it was written, it just seemed as if the shooting player had to Reroll a successful Glancing Hit with a different target number. That's not something I'm okay with as a base rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

jade_angel wrote:

 IllumiNini wrote:
<snippity>
-- Glancing Hits [In the real world] don't always have an effect. They may just bounce of the armour and/or leave a light scratch. In this case, I feel comfortable saying that this concept can be reasonably translated to the tabletop via a rule or instance such as the one I'm proposing.

<snip>

Responding to that, specifically - 40k seems to represent "hits" that don't actually do damage, that just bounce off, as failed armor pen rolls, not as glancing hits. I'm taking a bit of an educated guess, but the "glancing hit" category seems intended to represent attacks that hit hard enough to damage something, but did not actually pierce the armor, specifically excluding shots that just harmlessly donk off, leaving a scratch.

Pretty much. There are many cases of World War II tanks which were abandoned because a glancing hit bounced off the front armour and richoted up through the main barrel (or just went through the barrel from the side), with no other damage recorded. Treads were also incredibly vulnerable to hits from the size.

 Charistoph wrote:

 Haravikk wrote:
I like the idea of an AP-based "save" against glances, should tone them down a bit. To be honest I've been wondering whether we even need glancing hits at all; we could just as easily get away with penetrating hit or nothing, but that would require tweaks to vehicles, would make Land Raiders pretty solid again though.

If the OP was an actual Armour Save for Glancing Hits, it could work, and I could get behind it. It would also allow situations where the auto-Glance from a Gauss Blaster would be more reliable than one from a Gauss Flayer.

From how it was written, it just seemed as if the shooting player had to Reroll a successful Glancing Hit with a different target number. That's not something I'm okay with as a base rule.

The problem with making it an Armour Save is that, at least in my experience, there's no good way to define it. Also, most AT weapons will ignore said Armour Save due to their AP value.

 Charistoph wrote:

jade_angel wrote:

 IllumiNini wrote:
<snippity>
-- Glancing Hits [In the real world] don't always have an effect. They may just bounce of the armour and/or leave a light scratch. In this case, I feel comfortable saying that this concept can be reasonably translated to the tabletop via a rule or instance such as the one I'm proposing.

<snip>

Responding to that, specifically - 40k seems to represent "hits" that don't actually do damage, that just bounce off, as failed armor pen rolls, not as glancing hits. I'm taking a bit of an educated guess, but the "glancing hit" category seems intended to represent attacks that hit hard enough to damage something, but did not actually pierce the armor, specifically excluding shots that just harmlessly donk off, leaving a scratch.

Pretty much. There are many cases of World War II tanks which were abandoned because a glancing hit bounced off the front armour and richoted up through the main barrel (or just went through the barrel from the side), with no other damage recorded. Treads were also incredibly vulnerable to hits from the size.

At the same time, there were cases where the rounds (even the larger rounds such as High Velocity AT rounds) bouncing off the armour and away without causing any damage. This sort of glance without damage is what I'm trying to immitate with this rule.

As a side note, I would consider the ... glancing hit bounced off the front armour and richoted up through the main barrel... to be a scenario that's represented by the game's Penetrating Hit mechanic.

The ones that bounce off would be the ones that failed to penetrate because they already hit.

A glancing hit that happened to take off a cannon or tread without destroying the structural integrity of the vehicle is actually what my change provides.

 IllumiNini wrote:
The problem with making it an Armour Save is that, at least in my experience, there's no good way to define it. Also, most AT weapons will ignore said Armour Save due to their AP value.

It doesn't have to be a literal Armour Save. I was just equating it to one for sake of concept. Considering it is also based on AP of the Weapon, it isn't that far out. Basically, it's the concept that the owning player gets a chance to prevent the damage instead of the shooting player having to do more work to make the damage stick.

As a base mechanic, the Save is a better approach than rerolling a success.

 IllumiNini wrote:
At the same time, there were cases where the rounds (even the larger rounds such as High Velocity AT rounds) bouncing off the armour and away without causing any damage. This sort of glance without damage is what I'm trying to immitate with this rule.

As a side note, I would consider the ... glancing hit bounced off the front armour and richoted up through the main barrel... to be a scenario that's represented by the game's Penetrating Hit mechanic.

But it only penetrated the Weapon, not the Hull.

And to be fair, if a Glancing Hit is a unmodified Roll on the VDT, 5/6 results will do nothing permanent to the Vehicle, and only subsequent Rolls on 6 will cause Hull Point loss.

 IllumiNini wrote:
@Haravikk:

So am I right when I interpret what you're saying as the following?:

Armourbane, Gauss, Melta, and Rending should not be on the list of Special Rules that automatically pass my proposed Armour Glancing Check.

Yeah; all of these already have bonuses so IMO there's no real need to make them pass these glancing checks more easily. In fact all but Gauss have bonuses to make it easier to penetrate in the first place, which I think is plenty, and with good AP most will glance easily enough anyway.
Gauss will be weakened by two-thirds against vehicles, but it's still getting automatic glancing hits on vehicles regardless of armour value, which I think is still sufficient bonus for weapons that are primarily for anti-infantry anyway.

 IllumiNini wrote:
The problem with making it an Armour Save is that, at least in my experience, there's no good way to define it. Also, most AT weapons will ignore said Armour Save due to their AP value.

What do you mean by "define it"? Vehicles can already get cover and invulnerable saves, it's not complicated. As for most anti-tank weapons ignoring the armour save, that's the point; the issue is that glance-spam from medium-strength high-volume weapons is the superior method.

Haravikk wrote:

 IllumiNini wrote:
@Haravikk:

So am I right when I interpret what you're saying as the following?:

Armourbane, Gauss, Melta, and Rending should not be on the list of Special Rules that automatically pass my proposed Armour Glancing Check.

Yeah; all of these already have bonuses so IMO there's no real need to make them pass these glancing checks more easily. In fact all but Gauss have bonuses to make it easier to penetrate in the first place, which I think is plenty, and with good AP most will glance easily enough anyway.
Gauss will be weakened by two-thirds against vehicles, but it's still getting automatic glancing hits on vehicles regardless of armour value, which I think is still sufficient bonus for weapons that are primarily for anti-infantry anyway.

Fair enough. I can respect that.

Charistoph wrote:

 IllumiNini wrote:
The problem with making it an Armour Save is that, at least in my experience, there's no good way to define it. Also, most AT weapons will ignore said Armour Save due to their AP value.

It doesn't have to be a literal Armour Save. I was just equating it to one for sake of concept. Considering it is also based on AP of the Weapon, it isn't that far out. Basically, it's the concept that the owning player gets a chance to prevent the damage instead of the shooting player having to do more work to make the damage stick.

As a base mechanic, the Save is a better approach than rerolling a success.

So maybe a baseline Invulnerable Save (or something like that) instead?

I tried to define an Invulnerable Save for Vehicles that would serve as their 'Armour' Save, but it ended up having way too many 'ifs' and 'buts'.

Charistoph wrote:

 IllumiNini wrote:
At the same time, there were cases where the rounds (even the larger rounds such as High Velocity AT rounds) bouncing off the armour and away without causing any damage. This sort of glance without damage is what I'm trying to immitate with this rule.

As a side note, I would consider the ... glancing hit bounced off the front armour and richoted up through the main barrel... to be a scenario that's represented by the game's Penetrating Hit mechanic.

But it only penetrated the Weapon, not the Hull.

And to be fair, if a Glancing Hit is a unmodified Roll on the VDT, 5/6 results will do nothing permanent to the Vehicle, and only subsequent Rolls on 6 will cause Hull Point loss.

Fair enough, though it still doesn't sit 100% right with me. I understand that it's not penetrating the Hull with, for example, a Weapon Destroyed result, but it still seems off to me for a Glancing Hit to do this to a Vehicle without also inflicting a Hull Point (since - at least to my mind - the infliction of a Hull Point is supposed to go hand-in-hand with damage to the vehicle).

I will, however, put this "Roll an Unmodified D6 on the VDT for Glancing Hits" in the original post and start a poll. I'd be interested to see which of our rules people would prefer.

 Frozen Ocean wrote:

 IllumiNini wrote:
The problem with making it an Armour Save is that, at least in my experience, there's no good way to define it. Also, most AT weapons will ignore said Armour Save due to their AP value.

What do you mean by "define it"?

What I mean by 'define it' is how to word a rule that explains what a 'Vehicle Armour Save' is, etc etc etc (much the same way that what's in the quote in the original post defines my proposed rule).

 Frozen Ocean wrote:
Vehicles can already get cover and invulnerable saves, it's not complicated.

The complexity isn't derived from the concept of an Armour Save, but more so when it comes to defining it so that it isn't completely useless (because, for example, it's ignored because of a weapin's AP Value) or too overpowered. Again, properly defining a Vehicle Armour Save has been complicated in my experience.

 Frozen Ocean wrote:
As for most anti-tank weapons ignoring the armour save, that's the point...

So with regards to AT Weapons and Vehicle Armour Saves, I really don't see the point in having an Armour Save at all on vehicles unless you define it as an Invulnerable Save rather than an Armour Save.

 Frozen Ocean wrote:
... the issue is that glance-spam from medium-strength high-volume weapons is the superior method.

This is part of the problem I hope to address with the rule.

DEFINITELY the first proposal. The second proposal is just gonna bring back the horrendous stun locking extravaganza that made non-transport vehicles useless in 5th edition.

Hasn't yet in any of my games. It's a 1/6 chance (normally) to get a glancing hit. It really isn't that big a deal.

My vehicle being forced to shoot snapshots as opposed to being destroyed is preferable IMO.

 IllumiNini wrote:

 Frozen Ocean wrote:
As for most anti-tank weapons ignoring the armour save, that's the point...

So with regards to AT Weapons and Vehicle Armour Saves, I really don't see the point in having an Armour Save at all on vehicles unless you define it as an Invulnerable Save rather than an Armour Save.

 Frozen Ocean wrote:
... the issue is that glance-spam from medium-strength high-volume weapons is the superior method.

This is part of the problem I hope to address with the rule.

Vehicles don't need additional defence against anti-tank weapons, they need defence against glance-spam from medium-strength high-volume weapons. Therefore, armour saves work; they are ignored by the AP values present on anti-tank weapons (and Rending), but not ignored by the weapons that are causing the issue (aforementioned high-volume medium-strength weapons). If a vehicle has a 3+ save, it becomes vastly more durable against, for instance, scatter lasers, but it does not change against krak missiles.

I'm sorry, I still don't understand what your difficulty is with "defining" a vehicle armour save. Either you are unsure of how this would work (which is very simple - a vehicle's armour save functions exactly like a vehicle's invulnerable save does, except it may be ignored by a weapon of appropriate AP value) or you are unsure as to what saves (3+, 4+, etc) to give what vehicles. That's a balance question that needs worked out on a per-vehicle basis, but largely I'd say most should have 4+ with the occasional 3+, and a 5+ for most skimmer types.

If you give a vehicle a 4+ invulnerable save, all weapons become 50% less effective against it, including lascannons and autocannons. If you give a vehicle a 4+ armour save, only weapons of AP5/6/- become less effective against it. Lascannon type weapons do not need a nerf, glance-spam does. The only logical choice is an armour save.

I don't think their is a difficulty in determining armour saves for vehicles; however it violates the principle of Occam's Razor and necessitates the adding of a new stat to every single vehicle. In terms of gameplay effect there is no difference between rolling a save and rolling this AP check proposed in the OP. It doesn't matter which player rolls the dice. A vehicle armour save of 3+ against a weapon of AP 5 has EXACTLY the same effect as just rolling for a 5+ from that AP value. The difference is that we already have AP values included in this game. We don't have any vehicle armour saves, they would need to be determined and added for each vehicle. That's why I proposed this AP check, so we could make use of a stat that's already there.

 Frozen Ocean wrote:
Vehicles don't need additional defence against anti-tank weapons, they need defence against glance-spam from medium-strength high-volume weapons. Therefore, armour saves work; they are ignored by the AP values present on anti-tank weapons (and Rending), but not ignored by the weapons that are causing the issue (aforementioned high-volume medium-strength weapons). If a vehicle has a 3+ save, it becomes vastly more durable against, for instance, scatter lasers, but it does not change against krak missiles.

I'm sorry, I still don't understand what your difficulty is with "defining" a vehicle armour save. Either you are unsure of how this would work (which is very simple - a vehicle's armour save functions exactly like a vehicle's invulnerable save does, except it may be ignored by a weapon of appropriate AP value) or you are unsure as to what saves (3+, 4+, etc) to give what vehicles. That's a balance question that needs worked out on a per-vehicle basis, but largely I'd say most should have 4+ with the occasional 3+, and a 5+ for most skimmer types.

My difficulty is with defining the value of the Armour Save such that it's not only appropriate for the vehicle and its type (e.g. Open-Topped, Super Heavy, Different Armour Values on different Armour Facings, etc), but also does exactly what I want it to do. As I said, In my experience: I have had trouble with this since defining a generic Vehicle Armour Save usually results in an Armour Save which is under- or over-powered. If you want to show me that it's easy, I invite you to properly and clearly define a Vehicle Armour Save.

And Marksman is right in that the initial proposal makes use of an existing characteristic to do nearly exactly the same thing as the armour save without introducing a new characteristic for all vehicles (which also means that this rule likely will require less balancing).

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Hasn't yet in any of my games. It's a 1/6 chance (normally) to get a glancing hit. It really isn't that big a deal.

My vehicle being forced to shoot snapshots as opposed to being destroyed is preferable IMO.

A glance is a 1 in 6, yes, but you're increasing the frequency of damage chart rolls by 16.66 % which is a substantial increase. The initial proposal is better because it does something to address the fragility of vehicles without going back to stun lock edition.

Marksman224 wrote:
I don't think their is a difficulty in determining armour saves for vehicles; however it violates the principle of Occam's Razor and necessitates the adding of a new stat to every single vehicle. In terms of gameplay effect there is no difference between rolling a save and rolling this AP check proposed in the OP. It doesn't matter which player rolls the dice. A vehicle armour save of 3+ against a weapon of AP 5 has EXACTLY the same effect as just rolling for a 5+ from that AP value. The difference is that we already have AP values included in this game. We don't have any vehicle armour saves, they would need to be determined and added for each vehicle. That's why I proposed this AP check, so we could make use of a stat that's already there.

Perhaps it's because I'm already rewriting the whole game (as are many of late), but adding a save for each vehicle isn't an issue to me. Really my only opposition to the AP check is that I don't like it; it gives a vehicle a "save" against glancing but not penetrating hits, which I just find odd. It also means that AP1 and 2 can now fail a glance on a further roll of a 1 (unless a 1 is not considered a fail, in which case it only matters to AP2).

 IllumiNini wrote:

 Frozen Ocean wrote:
Vehicles don't need additional defence against anti-tank weapons, they need defence against glance-spam from medium-strength high-volume weapons. Therefore, armour saves work; they are ignored by the AP values present on anti-tank weapons (and Rending), but not ignored by the weapons that are causing the issue (aforementioned high-volume medium-strength weapons). If a vehicle has a 3+ save, it becomes vastly more durable against, for instance, scatter lasers, but it does not change against krak missiles.

I'm sorry, I still don't understand what your difficulty is with "defining" a vehicle armour save. Either you are unsure of how this would work (which is very simple - a vehicle's armour save functions exactly like a vehicle's invulnerable save does, except it may be ignored by a weapon of appropriate AP value) or you are unsure as to what saves (3+, 4+, etc) to give what vehicles. That's a balance question that needs worked out on a per-vehicle basis, but largely I'd say most should have 4+ with the occasional 3+, and a 5+ for most skimmer types.

My difficulty is with defining the value of the Armour Save such that it's not only appropriate for the vehicle and its type (e.g. Open-Topped, Super Heavy, Different Armour Values on different Armour Facings, etc), but also does exactly what I want it to do. As I said, In my experience: I have had trouble with this since defining a generic Vehicle Armour Save usually results in an Armour Save which is under- or over-powered. If you want to show me that it's easy, I invite you to properly and clearly define a Vehicle Armour Save.

And Marksman is right in that the initial proposal makes use of an existing characteristic to do nearly exactly the same thing as the armour save without introducing a new characteristic for all vehicles (which also means that this rule likely will require less balancing).

I didn't say it was easy, or that Marksman's proposal is "wrong". I brought it up because I didn't understand your stated reasons as to why an armour save system couldn't work (particularly with your reasoning "because AT weapons would ignore the saves and therefore there's no point unless they're invulnerable saves"). It's fine to just prefer a different method, of course.

Currently I'm working with most vehicles having a 4+ save, with Walkers having one that is appropriate to their army and their equivalents (all Dreadnoughts have a 3+, comparative with the similar Wraithlord, while Scout Sentinels have a 5+ and Armoured Sentinels a 4+). Facings don't apply, because that's what AV is for. Lighter vehicles like Land Speeders have a 5+. No vehicle has a 2+ save yet, simply because I can't justify it. The few AP3 weapons that exist don't need to be even less relevant - a krak missile glancing a Land Raider on a 6 is hardly broken, while requiring it to bypass a 2+ save would make it more or less useless. It's a rough work in progress, but so far the general rule of thumb is that most vehicles have a 4+ save unless they have access to Jink. It's intended as a means to even out the issue of skimmers and Monstrous Creatures being objectively better than non-skimmer vehicles and walkers. 4+ being common is also a way to increase the relative usefulness of autocannons; if 3+ was the baseline, they would suffer immensely. So far 4+ feels like a nice balance in that it doesn't render anything totally useless while the things that should be piercing it are doing so.

I didn't say it was easy, or that Marksman's proposal is "wrong". I brought it up because I didn't understand your stated reasons as to why an armour save system couldn't work (particularly with your reasoning "because AT weapons would ignore the saves and therefore there's no point unless they're invulnerable saves"). It's fine to just prefer a different method, of course.

Currently I'm working with most vehicles having a 4+ save, with Walkers having one that is appropriate to their army and their equivalents (all Dreadnoughts have a 3+, comparative with the similar Wraithlord, while Scout Sentinels have a 5+ and Armoured Sentinels a 4+). Facings don't apply, because that's what AV is for. Lighter vehicles like Land Speeders have a 5+. No vehicle has a 2+ save yet, simply because I can't justify it. The few AP3 weapons that exist don't need to be even less relevant - a krak missile glancing a Land Raider on a 6 is hardly broken, while requiring it to bypass a 2+ save would make it more or less useless. It's a rough work in progress, but so far the general rule of thumb is that most vehicles have a 4+ save unless they have access to Jink. It's intended as a means to even out the issue of skimmers and Monstrous Creatures being objectively better than non-skimmer vehicles and walkers. 4+ being common is also a way to increase the relative usefulness of autocannons; if 3+ was the baseline, they would suffer immensely. So far 4+ feels like a nice balance in that it doesn't render anything totally useless while the things that should be piercing it are doing so.

I think this is a bad idea. Your way of doing things makes vehicles even more fragile than before. Your proposed rule makes it so pretty much everyone and everything can wound a vehicle. How is that good?

@Frozen Ocean:

I'm not entirely sure why you don't like my rule. Yes, an armour save may do the job just as well as my rule (or maybe a bit better), but so far you seem to be arguing that your rule is better even though you have a general concept rather than a well laid out, complete rule.

Here's how I'm reading what you've said:

You don't like my rule, presumably because you like the concept of an Armour Save better, but I can't tell.

Now, let's consider my proposal (labelled 'Initial Proposal' in the now updated original post):

-- AP1 gets a free ride (meaning it automatically passes the test and inflicts an HP automatically).
-- Now, AP2 will be affected, but it still has a 5 in 6 chance of Inflicting a Hull Point.

Now, considering a vast number of Anti-Tank Weapons fall in the category of AP1 or AP2, I reckon they're not being treated unfairly by my rule and can still do what they're designed to do with respect to Glancing Hits: Do damage.

Now, with AP3:
-- It still has a decent probability of passing the check (two thirds is a solid probability) and inflicting a HP, so things like Krakk Missiles and Hunter-Killer Missiles still have a decent chance at inflicting a HP on a Glancning Hit.

Now of AP4 - 6, this is where most of the high RoF weapons which can also be AT weapons fall in, and these are the weapons we're trying to stop Glancing Vehicles to death.

Now, take the Assault Cannon for example: Assault 4 AP4. Even if all 4 shots were Glancing Hits, only two of them would actually inflict a HP under my rule (statistically speaking). That is a solid reduction, and that's for AP4. With AP5, the number of Glancing Hits inflicting HP is reduced by 66.67% and that reduction is 83.33% on AP6.

And then you take the bottom of the spectrum: AP-. As I've said before, consider a 10-man Tactical Squad with Chainswords hitting AV10 on a non-Walker Vehicle. Even if they all had a only 1 Attack each (so 10 Attacks total hitting on a 3+ at S4 AP-), they are still statistically going to inflict 1.11111.... ~ 1 Hull Point on the vehicle. Statistics aside, I've seen rolls in situations like this where a Tactical/Crusader Squad is hitting AV10 that have led to the squad comfortably killing the target which has 2 - 3 Hull Points (which have proven to be not uncommon rolls in my experience). And even if you disregard all that because of "That's only 1 HP" or "That's just your experience", consider the fact that if you're charging a vehicle with an infantry squad, you're more than likely going to have some AT (such as Melta Bombs, a Power Fist, Krakk Grenades, etc), so we don't need Chainswords in the works doing spam damage.

The scenario described directly above with the Tactical Squads as well as the weapons we're both trying to target with our rules (e.g. Assault Canons) are comfortably dealt with by my rule while leaving all other Anti-Tank Weapons with a reasonable chance of doing damage with a Glancing Hit (as well as the fact that Anti-Tank Weapons don't rely on Glancing Hits to do damage).

If your problem with my rule is that it doesn't address Penetrating Hits, it should be noted that I never said that this rule was meant to address Penetrating Hits, and nor did I say that Penetrating Hits should be exempt from a rule like this (meaning that if you think Penetrating Hits should be harder to make, you're more than welcome to come up with a method of making that happen and I will probably agree with the premise (if nothing else)).

I think its a bit silly as you've already failed to penetrate so why do you get another chance to do so!
If you are going to implement it then be fair... say if you penetrate then theres a chance that its might be a glancing hit!!!!!!
I just leave out glancing hits altogether.

licclerich wrote:
I think its a bit silly as you've already failed to penetrate so why do you get another chance to do so!

I'm not giving them another chance to cause a Penetrating Hit - that's not what this rule is doing.

licclerich wrote:
If you are going to implement it then be fair... say if you penetrate then theres a chance that its might be a glancing hit!!!!!!

I'll direct you to something I said in the post directly above yours:

If your problem with my rule is that it doesn't address Penetrating Hits, it should be noted that I never said that this rule was meant to address Penetrating Hits, and nor did I say that Penetrating Hits should be exempt from a rule like this (meaning that if you think Penetrating Hits should be harder to make, you're more than welcome to come up with a method of making that happen and I will probably agree with the premise (if nothing else)).

licclerich wrote:
I just leave out glancing hits altogether.

Why?

 NorseSig wrote:
I think this is a bad idea. Your way of doing things makes vehicles even more fragile than before. Your proposed rule makes it so pretty much everyone and everything can wound a vehicle. How is that good?

Where are you getting that from? The armour save is meant to work like any other, in that's rolled for "wounds" (or in this case, glancing and penetrating hits). Exactly the same as cover and invulnerable saves work for vehicles in the vanilla game, except they can be ignored by AP.

 IllumiNini wrote:
@Frozen Ocean:

I'm not entirely sure why you don't like my rule. Yes, an armour save may do the job just as well as my rule (or maybe a bit better), but so far you seem to be arguing that your rule is better even though you have a general concept rather than a well laid out, complete rule.

Here's how I'm reading what you've said:

You don't like my rule, presumably because you like the concept of an Armour Save better, but I can't tell.

 IllumiNini wrote:
-mathhammer snip-.

I didn't say that your rule didn't function. I also didn't say those things you put in quotes ("That's only 1 HP" and "That's just your experience"). I'm not arguing against your rule or for my own. It's just not my preference. It just doesn't "feel" right to me, that's all. I'm not saying it's objectively inferior to mine or any other method, or that it doesn't work. I was trying to refute the statements earlier in the thread about how an armour save could not work at all, because there were a couple of statements regarding the matter that I disagreed with. I apologise if I came across as trying to supplant/discredit your proposal.

EDIT: I brought up the lack of penetrating hit protection as part of the reason why it doesn't feel quite right, not that there should or shouldn't be any.

Fair enough, and I'm sorry: I just slightly misinterpreted what you were trying to say. My bad.

With the "That's only 1 HP" quotes, I wasn't trying to mean that you said them, but more of a generic statement to say that I've considered other (albeit slightly different) standpoints on this.

As for the Penetrating Hit stuff, I am considering doing another rule for them but didn't include them in this rule since they are two quite separate things. Then this new rule surounding Penetrating Hits would be paired and thus form a new basis for the restructure of the results for the To Penetrate rolls.

While I like the idea, and I think it has some merit to it, I honestly think glancing hits should incur no HP loss, but get to roll on the damage chart (with some negatives).

 War Kitten wrote:
While I like the idea, and I think it has some merit to it, I honestly think glancing hits should incur no HP loss, but get to roll on the damage chart (with some negatives).

Fair enough. We might have to agree to disagree, then! haha

Just so it doesn't look like I'm dismissing this VDT with no HP Loss idea out of hand because I proposed a rule I like, here's what's irking me about the VDT idea and why I think it makes no sense:

Crew Shaken - I can see how this may work, but unless you can come up with a new VDT that has some similarly 'harmless' results, I'm not seeing this particular result working on its own.

Crew Stunned - Assuming a solid vehicle (not Open-Topped), then to my mind it makes absolutely no sense that the projectile of the weapon (whatever it is) can shake the vehicle enough to stun the crew without doing damage of some sort. Assuming an Open-Topped vehicle, how will you differentiate what happens to a vehicle that is Open-Topped vs a vehicle that's not?

Weapon Destroyed - Now, I know it doesn't technically penetrate the hull, but you are doing damage to the structure of the vehicle. Take, for example, the destruction of a sponson weapon. Said destruction may mean that the structural integrity of the armour the sponson was attached to is compromised, or there's a thinner layer of armour because the weapon isn't there. These aforementioned downfalls of the weapon being destroyed aren't things the game system in its current state can account for, plus (as I said) you're doing damage to the structure of the vehicle (even if it isn't the hull); hence HP loss is required here.

Immobilised - Same sort of deal as the Weapon Destroyed result. Plus there's more than one way to immoblised a vehicle apart from knocking out its tracks. Destroying the engine without exploding it is one, which would definitely cause HP loss (and not just on additional immobilised results).

 IllumiNini wrote:
Crew Stunned - Assuming a solid vehicle (not Open-Topped), then to my mind it makes absolutely no sense that the projectile of the weapon (whatever it is) can shake the vehicle enough to stun the crew without doing damage of some sort. Assuming an Open-Topped vehicle, how will you differentiate what happens to a vehicle that is Open-Topped vs a vehicle that's not?

Simple, it shakes all the crew so their driver and shooters aren't able to work their systems properly. It happens just driving down the road for a regular driver without causing undue strain on the vehicle, why cannot a round that bounced off do the same? The shocking sound of the ricochet could also cause the crew to loose their hand positions thinking that they actually were Penetrated, or to go through measures in case they were..

 IllumiNini wrote:
Weapon Destroyed - Now, I know it doesn't technically penetrate the hull, but you are doing damage to the structure of the vehicle. Take, for example, the destruction of a sponson weapon. Said destruction may mean that the structural integrity of the armour the sponson was attached to is compromised, or there's a thinner layer of armour because the weapon isn't there. These aforementioned downfalls of the weapon being destroyed aren't things the game system in its current state can account for, plus (as I said) you're doing damage to the structure of the vehicle (even if it isn't the hull); hence HP loss is required here.

Sponsons are easily justified. They aren't part of the incorporated structure of the Vehicle. They don't hold up the ceiling of the Vehicle or keep the Engine or Motive systems in place.

In addition, as I pointed out earlier, the barrels themselves are exposed. We could be looking at the barrel being sheared in half from a ricochet or some circuits being misaligned such that they need shopwork to be repaired.

But remember, Penetrating Hits would not be loosing access to the VDT, either. So while a Glancing Weapon Destroyed may result in an easy repair on the Weapon, a Penetrating Hit would be damaging whole feeds as well as the structure of the Vehicle.

 IllumiNini wrote:
Immobilised - Same sort of deal as the Weapon Destroyed result. Plus there's more than one way to immoblised a vehicle apart from knocking out its tracks. Destroying the engine without exploding it is one, which would definitely cause HP loss (and not just on additional immobilised results).

True. But accessing the VDT would not be exclusive to the Glancing Hit, remember. A Glancing Hit may take out a Human Track, an Ork Wheel, or a Tau/Eldar/Necron exhaust Vent, while the Penetrating Hit would be digging deep to damage the engine itself inside the armoured plates and warping the holding structure surrounding it.

And let's face it, for most AT Weapons in the game, gaining a Penetrating Hit is actually EASIER than getting a Glancing Hit. A Lascannon hitting a Predator has a 1/3 chance to Penetrate versus a 1/6 Chance to Glance. Melta Weapons are even more likely to Penetrate due to their capacity to reach up to a total of 20 for the roll. Where this doesn't qualify is for those Weapons that are less-capable such as Tau Pulse Weapons or an IG Power Fist. Autocannons and most Plasma Weapons are in a grey area where they are good at taking out light Armour but are almost hopeless versus the heaviest AVs.

You make good and fair points, but the concept still doesn't sit well with me. It's not that it doesn't function well as a rule; it's more a conceptual thing that my mind is just not liking. So yeah, agree to disagree haha.

 Charistoph wrote:
And let's face it, for most AT Weapons in the game, gaining a Penetrating Hit is actually EASIER than getting a Glancing Hit. A Lascannon hitting a Predator has a 1/3 chance to Penetrate versus a 1/6 Chance to Glance. Melta Weapons are even more likely to Penetrate due to their capacity to reach up to a total of 20 for the roll. Where this doesn't qualify is for those Weapons that are less-capable such as Tau Pulse Weapons or an IG Power Fist. Autocannons and most Plasma Weapons are in a grey area where they are good at taking out light Armour but are almost hopeless versus the heaviest AVs.

I think this sums up a solid reason why both my proposal and the VDT proposal would work.

Agreed. Both your idea and the VDT proposal would work imo

 IllumiNini wrote:
You make good and fair points, but the concept still doesn't sit well with me. It's not that it doesn't function well as a rule; it's more a conceptual thing that my mind is just not liking. So yeah, agree to disagree haha.

As I said, my biggest problem with the original post is that it is tantamount to a reroll a successful Armour Penetration Roll. If we were looking at a Save function, like the owning player rolling UNDER the AP value, that would be a consideration. You are not punishing the shooter for not rolling well (even if only a Glance was possible), but giving an opportunity for the owner to save their Vehicle from being punished.

After all, should we have Successfull To Wound Rolls be rerolled if the the results are the minimum required to Wound?

But this would be adding a mechanic to the game while the VDT option just swaps two results, which is why I find it better.

I don't see the AP roll as being an extra roll that the attacking player is forced to do for not rolling well. I see it as a different, more simplified VDT for glancing hits; AP or above = hull point loss, under AP = no effect.
On the other hand I still actually favour the second proposal.

Marksman224 wrote:
I don't see the AP roll as being an extra roll that the attacking player is forced to do for not rolling well. I see it as a different, more simplified VDT for glancing hits; AP or above = hull point loss, under AP = no effect.

Because the shooting player is rolling to make sure the success stays a success, and is still based on meeting only the minimum requirements of "damaging" a Vehicle.

Name another mechanic in which the basic rules apply an additional roll to maintain a success.

 Charistoph wrote:

Marksman224 wrote:
I don't see the AP roll as being an extra roll that the attacking player is forced to do for not rolling well. I see it as a different, more simplified VDT for glancing hits; AP or above = hull point loss, under AP = no effect.

Because the shooting player is rolling to make sure the success stays a success, and is still based on meeting only the minimum requirements of "damaging" a Vehicle.

Name another mechanic in which the basic rules apply an additional roll to maintain a success.

Roll to wound.

Marksman224 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Marksman224 wrote:
I don't see the AP roll as being an extra roll that the attacking player is forced to do for not rolling well. I see it as a different, more simplified VDT for glancing hits; AP or above = hull point loss, under AP = no effect.

Because the shooting player is rolling to make sure the success stays a success, and is still based on meeting only the minimum requirements of "damaging" a Vehicle.

Name another mechanic in which the basic rules apply an additional roll to maintain a success.

Roll to wound.

Invalid. You only roll once for each To Wound attempt, barring Special Rules which allow for a reroll. The To Wound Roll does follow the To Hit Roll, and while the To Wound Roll is applied to make sure the Attack is a success, we do not ever reroll the To Wound or To Hit rolls themselves in the basic rules. (Yes, yes, Advanced and Codex rules will alter this affair, but this is a basic rule change we're talking about.)

 Charistoph wrote:

Invalid. You only roll once for each To Wound attempt, barring Special Rules which allow for a reroll. The To Wound Roll does follow the To Hit Roll, and while the To Wound Roll is applied to make sure the Attack is a success, we do not ever reroll the To Wound or To Hit rolls themselves in the basic rules. (Yes, yes, Advanced and Codex rules will alter this affair, but this is a basic rule change we're talking about.)

Just because you disagree with me that doesn't mean that my point is invalid. My point is valid.
If I conduct an attack I must roll to see if it's successful in one sense, then I have to roll to maintain that success. If I attack a vehicle I have to roll to hit, roll to penetrate, then roll to damage, it's the same thing.
So we're constantly making additional rolls in this game, which if failed will mean the previous result achieved nothing. The AP roll is NOT a re-roll of the penetration roll. It's no different to any of the others, it's just that it is the third roll instead of the second roll like the roll to wound is. If you want to argue this rule is bad because it adds more dice rolling, that's fine, just say so. I generally lean towards changes that reduce the number rolls that players need to make.

But, the vehicle may have already ALSO had to roll a save. Either rule is causing an additional die roll, both will add somewhat to vehicle survivability. With option two your glance will do SOMETHING no matter what. Will it mean the vehicle is probably not going to be as effective next turn? Probably. But there are wargear options for most factions to limit the penalties for crew shaken/stunned.

With the initial proposal the attacking unit that caused the glance may succeed on the die roll to make the glance do damage, and may then lose the damage anyway because of cover or invul saves. It is basically giving a fluctuating feel no pain against glancing hits.

One causes glancing hits to be less effective period. The other causes glancing hits to not be able to kill outright. Obviously, I am biased towards the second proposal. But it is how I've been playing glancing hits for months now and it has been a lot of fun!

(Caveat, I have a huge pile of houserules to go along with this one. So my games are pretty different from the norm)

 Charistoph wrote:

Marksman224 wrote:
I don't see the AP roll as being an extra roll that the attacking player is forced to do for not rolling well. I see it as a different, more simplified VDT for glancing hits; AP or above = hull point loss, under AP = no effect.

Because the shooting player is rolling to make sure the success stays a success, and is still based on meeting only the minimum requirements of "damaging" a Vehicle.

Name another mechanic in which the basic rules apply an additional roll to maintain a success.

Soul Blaze?

Marksman224 wrote:Just because you disagree with me that doesn't mean that my point is invalid. My point is valid.
If I conduct an attack I must roll to see if it's successful in one sense, then I have to roll to maintain that success. If I attack a vehicle I have to roll to hit, roll to penetrate, then roll to damage, it's the same thing.
So we're constantly making additional rolls in this game, which if failed will mean the previous result achieved nothing. The AP roll is NOT a re-roll of the penetration roll. It's no different to any of the others, it's just that it is the third roll instead of the second roll like the roll to wound is. If you want to argue this rule is bad because it adds more dice rolling, that's fine, just say so. I generally lean towards changes that reduce the number rolls that players need to make.

You left it at "To Wound", though, and did not include it as part of the Attack profile set when you stated it. And even then, the To Wound process isn't completely set up to maintain the success of the To Hit process, but to determine a different level of success, not to maintain the same level of success already achieved.

If I was worried about rolling more Dice, I would have left the VDT concept out.

pm713 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
Name another mechanic in which the basic rules apply an additional roll to maintain a success.

Soul Blaze?

Invalid. That is an Advanced Rule.

I'm not sure if this has been said yet (didn't read beyond OP), but I see one very big problem with this proposal.

It is obscenely punishing to melee armies and horde armies, both of which need no additional help when it comes to being bad.

I recognize that the rule is supposed to make things like auto cannons less lethal against vehicles, but right now it needs an addendum to only apply to ranged attacks. While it's somewhat silly to have small / middling ranged weapons be super effective against tanks, this does not carry over to melee attacks. The lethality of melee against most things with an AV is supposed to represent the vehicle being swarmed and guns being fired through the windows / sluts, grenades being tossed down the hatches, even crew being actively pulled out of the vehicle and such. As it stands the rules do a fair job of representing this, but with this suggested change you'd be almost completely gutting Orks and CSM against vehicles and vehicle spam.

You'd also be crippling tyranids, and they'd have to rely on extraordinarily slow monstrous creatures, Zoanthrope powers, or some middling / awful (and awfully specialized) weapons to take out armor.

Monstrous Creatures have Smash, which would make the Glancing Hit succeed on the roll of "anything but a". In this case, their Melee is largely fine. The same thing applies to most Dedicated AT Melee Weapons, namely Fists, Klaws, Meltabombs, and Hammers.

Where Tyranids are hurt is the same place that they've always been hurt and that is their Ranged AT weapons have the same AP as the Autocannon, for the most part. Again, there are some exceptions, but with Tyranid BS, they usually do not have the BS to take advantage of it, even with increased RoF.

I love the alternate proposal, so simple, yet so elegant.

But I would do it so the glance damage roll is still done with modifiers as normal, bringing value to low AP guns even on a "mere glace" compared to spam shots.

I mean, AP1 guns are intended to wreck tanks, so I'd rather see the S8AP1 shot be more destructive than the S8AP3 shot when a glance is hit.

This will turn low AP to be true tank killer guns, as even a "simple glance" is just as dangerous, but will keep the HP mechanic as a "clock" of sorts to assure you can't luck your way out of too many penetrating results with repeat stunned/shaken effects.


Really like the mindset behind it though. keeping things simple is a highly valuable design mechanic and the simple shift in though that "pen is HP and roll, glance is just HP" to "pen is HP and roll, glance is just roll" is truly something you headdesk after hearing and tell yourself "why did I not think of something this simple myself?"

With AP 1 and AP 2 guns, yes, they penetrate the Armour more effectively and more capable of doing severe damage, but by allowing it to modify the VDT Roll, we would need to alter Result #7 properly so that it's not an instant kill except on a Penetrating Hit (which admittedly IS an option in Proposed Rules).

I know this is bringing Real World concepts in to play, but to me, a Glancing Hit is one which hit at an angle which did not allow it's full energy to be expended on the Vehicle. This could be reflected in a ricochet for hard weapons or just a portion of a beam slicing in to the hull, unable to secure any damage to anything significant to the Vehicle's structure.

Of course, in these cases, I would probably change Gauss and similar to being more like Grav, and just doing a Hull Point of Damage on a Penetration Roll of 6 if it doesn't Penetrate. Of course, this would leave a Gauss's Glance with similar effectiveness to a Penetrating Hit.

I disagree, let 7 kill even on a "new glance"
With glancing to death gone, its that much harder to kill tanks anyway, and low AP guns will really need to step up their game in order to match it. (remember, before the age of glance kills, 6 was enough for insta-kill, and parking lots were viable, and at times dominant.)

And trust me as a mobile artillery soldier-a hit with proper AT weaponry is enough to take out most armored vehicles that are not main battle tanks, even on a less-than-perfect "glancing" hit

And yes, guass will need a change if the glance turns from HP to damage roll.

The only way I want a vehicle to die due to glances is if you get a pile of immobilized results. The bonus from ap and open topped state they apply to penetrating hits.

The additional Hull Points for additional Immobilised results is a bit of an iffy area for me, because if you consider weapons like Grav Cannons w/ Grav-Amps, the additional HP loss is OP. Even with consideration of weapons aside, where's the justification for it?

And Lythrandire BiehrellianMade is right - those bonuses only apply to Penetrating Hits. Plus in the Alternative Proposal, I specifically stated the D6 that you roll is unmodified.

 IllumiNini wrote:
The additional Hull Points for additional Immobilised results is a bit of an iffy area for me, because if you consider weapons like Grav Cannons w/ Grav-Amps, the additional HP loss is OP. Even with consideration of weapons aside, where's the justification for it?

And Lythrandire BiehrellianMade is right - those bonuses only apply to Penetrating Hits. Plus in the Alternative Proposal, I specifically stated the D6 that you roll is unmodified.

Yeah, in that case, I definitely would not be apposed to Graviton losing the Hull Point loss.

Realistically, especially if the ruling on multiple Immobilizes on the same Attack being "already" to each other keeps, I would still prefer this to the current setup.

The first immobilized result wouldn't cause hullpoint loss. So the second would cause two making most vehicles still alive if they take two.

That said, I have a huge chunk of houserules I play under and one is grav only glances on a 6.