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

Vehicles in general are too squishy. That is because they commonly lack a save, unlike the currently superior Monstrous Creatures.

Here is the suggestion that I and Silentspy22 conjured:

Dreadnoughts and all equivalents such as Helbrute: 2+
Defiler: 2+
Forgefiend and Maulerfiend: 3+
Battlewagon: 3+
Looted Wagon: 4+
Trukk: 4+
Warbuggies and all upgrades: 5+
Deff Dread and Killa Kan: 3+
All Rhino chassis: 3+
All Land Raider chassis: 2+
Falcon, Fire Prism, Wave Serpent: 3+
War Walker: 5+
All Sentinels: 5+
All Chimera chassis: 4+
All Leman Russ chassis: 3+
All Dark Eldar vehicles: 5+
Valkyrie, Vendetta, Vulture: 4+
Heldrake: 4+
Stormtalon: 4+
Stormraven: 3+
Dakkajet, Blitza-bommer, Burna-bommer: 5+
Crimson Hunter, Hemlock Wraithfighter: 5+
All Necron Arks: 4+
All Necron Barges: 5+
Monolith: 2+
Drop Pod: 4+
All Necron Scythe flyers: 5+
All Super-Heavy Vehicles: 2+

Now, some of this might be unnecessary, like the Wave Serpent getting a save... But then, we have none in our meta.

This is not a full list, we have not listed Tau, for example, but it some examples.

Well most weapons that shoot at vehicles are AP1-3 so it seems pointless.

 6^ wrote:
Well most weapons that shoot at vehicles are AP1-3 so it seems pointless.

Tell that to auto cannon and missile fist spam that everyone seems to have a hard on for lately.

^ That. It'd also have an effect in melee.

Well, missiles are AP3.

A missile or two is not the only problem that vehicles are facing, though.

I'd say a 4+ for most vehicles, 3+ for tanks.

Having the Heavy rule should improve the save by 1 while Open Topped would have their save be 1 worse.

There is no need to generalise like that when you can just include it in the vehicle's profile.

Dreadnoughts and similar need the 2+ because they are so incredibly fragile right now. A 4+ is enough for a Trukk since fragility is its main weakness. A Land Raider is so tough so it deserves a 2+. A Leman Russ, on the other hand, will have to make do with a 3+ as it is not as resilient.

We will field test these rules soon.

I dunno if I like this too much. I mean Stormravens are already immune to the melta rule and now you want to give them an incredibly good save on top of their ability to jink.

Just doing some quick math, but a unit of 3 missilesides.
Assuming A12.
4 shots a piece at twin-linked BS3.
12 shots, 8 hits, and 2.67 glance/pens, 089 unsaved against 3+.
Assuming the unit took Skyfire, that's a 255 point that's dedicated to anti-air that is now completely useless at that task.

I know it seems like vehicles are somewhat less resilient, but this might be going a bit too far.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It also doesn't really seem to help things like Land Raiders either, since the only real things they're vulnerable to in the first place is AP1/2 as it is. Also, how would a Leman Russ only get a 3+ when that's the save for a Rhino?

Things like the Waveserpent would be almost entirely unstoppable, since they can save 2/3 of hits against them from Ap4+ weapons and then reduce 5/6 of the shots through to glances.

This looks more like the case of trying to make vehicles better by completely invalidating Autocannon equivalent weapons from the game.

Not to mention in that example, the Stormraven potentially survived (lost 2.67 hull points and probably didn't get an explode result). So the Stormraven gains a fair bit that it doesn't need.

GW needs to decide if they want vehicles to be MC's or not. As is, they currently have an overlapping double-kill system that gives them both disadvantages for no good reason. The end result is that, aside from the Skimmer armies with cover enhancing wargear and cover ignoring weapons/mechanics or AV13 shields, vehicles are seen less and less on most tables, especially where an infantry equivalent can do.

If they're going to keep HP's, yes they need to be given a save of some sort, and the damage table needs to go bye-bye, as is they die way too easily. If they want vehicles to be distinct from MC's, drop the whole HP mechanic.

You're missing the Vyper.
War Walker already has a 5++
Many Dark Eldar vehicles get a 5++
Also, 5+ armour save is not worth discussing.

Suggestion:
AV <34 = 4+
AV 34+ = 3+ save
Tank or Heavy = +1 to save
Rear armour = -1 to save. Monolith does not have a rear.
Flyer = Gets no save value, fliers need to be built light.*
Temporary armour boosts or wargear boosts do not factor in to the calculation.

Wave Serpent's shield need a nerf, other Falcon-like chassis are actually rather fine or overpriced so it's not a problem with the design only that which makes the Serpent unique. Plus, no mandatory squad leaders makes DAVU still a thing :(

* The only, and I really mean only, fliers that need a crutch like this are the Hemlock and the Dark Angel air superiority fighter. (Previous edition stuff like the Dakkajet I ignored)

 Savageconvoy wrote:
I dunno if I like this too much. I mean Stormravens are already immune to the melta rule and now you want to give them an incredibly good save on top of their ability to jink.

Just doing some quick math, but a unit of 3 missilesides.
Assuming A12.
4 shots a piece at twin-linked BS3.
12 shots, 8 hits, and 2.67 glance/pens, 089 unsaved against 3+.
Assuming the unit took Skyfire, that's a 255 point that's dedicated to anti-air that is now completely useless at that task.

I know it seems like vehicles are somewhat less resilient, but this might be going a bit too far.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It also doesn't really seem to help things like Land Raiders either, since the only real things they're vulnerable to in the first place is AP1/2 as it is. Also, how would a Leman Russ only get a 3+ when that's the save for a Rhino?

Things like the Waveserpent would be almost entirely unstoppable, since they can save 2/3 of hits against them from Ap4+ weapons and then reduce 5/6 of the shots through to glances.

This looks more like the case of trying to make vehicles better by completely invalidating Autocannon equivalent weapons from the game.

Eh, we have no Stormravens in that meta either, so we didn't have too much experience. If we tried it and found it OP; we'd most likely adjust it. But yeah, massed missiles, scatter lasers, autocannons et cetera is what tends to kill vehicles. Most of the time they are hull pointed to death.

The values are adjustable, that is not the point.

Even a 5+ is not useless. It will come into play much more rarely, but against Warp Spiders, most melee attacks, etc, it can very well save the hide of a vehicle.

3+ made sense for a LR, it is after all supposed to be nowhere near as tough as a Land Raider, even if it is tougher than a Rhino. There is no 2.5+ armour save, so we decided 3+ will do.

BrotherHaraldus wrote:


3+ made sense for a LR, it is after all supposed to be nowhere near as tough as a Land Raider, even if it is tougher than a Rhino. There is no 2.5+ armour save, so we decided 3+ will do.

LR actually should be pretty close to a Land Raider, at one point it was actually even better armored than a Land Raider

 Mahtamori wrote:
...AV 34...

AV34! Now that would be hard to kill!

 Vaktathi wrote:

BrotherHaraldus wrote:


3+ made sense for a LR, it is after all supposed to be nowhere near as tough as a Land Raider, even if it is tougher than a Rhino. There is no 2.5+ armour save, so we decided 3+ will do.

LR actually should be pretty close to a Land Raider, at one point it was actually even better armored than a Land Raider

14/14/14 versus 14/12/10, 4 HP VS 3.

The difference is larger than between a Predator and a Warbuggy.

 Mahtamori wrote:
You're missing the Vyper.
War Walker already has a 5++
Many Dark Eldar vehicles get a 5++
Also, 5+ armour save is not worth discussing.

Suggestion:
AV <34 = 4+
AV 34+ = 3+ save
Tank or Heavy = +1 to save
Rear armour = -1 to save. Monolith does not have a rear.
Flyer = Gets no save value, fliers need to be built light.*
Temporary armour boosts or wargear boosts do not factor in to the calculation.

Wave Serpent's shield need a nerf, other Falcon-like chassis are actually rather fine or overpriced so it's not a problem with the design only that which makes the Serpent unique. Plus, no mandatory squad leaders makes DAVU still a thing :(

* The only, and I really mean only, fliers that need a crutch like this are the Hemlock and the Dark Angel air superiority fighter. (Previous edition stuff like the Dakkajet I ignored)

This is probably a good formula to start from, and then adjust accordingly from there if anything looks weird. I'd add that skimmers should also get -1 to their save by the same logic as flyers (lighter construction by necessity) but mostly because skimmers already have a considerable durability boost from jink saves.

And in doing this, Necrons ability to kill vehicles would be forever destroyed.

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

BrotherHaraldus wrote:


3+ made sense for a LR, it is after all supposed to be nowhere near as tough as a Land Raider, even if it is tougher than a Rhino. There is no 2.5+ armour save, so we decided 3+ will do.

LR actually should be pretty close to a Land Raider, at one point it was actually even better armored than a Land Raider

14/14/14 versus 14/12/10, 4 HP VS 3.

The difference is larger than between a Predator and a Warbuggy.

Side armor is 13. I get what you're saying, but lets remember that these HP's are largely arbitrary and that stat's on both vehicles have changed back and forth over time, and the Leman Russ damn sure should have a better save than a Rhino

Also, 4 hull-point Leman Russes are available to the Armored Battlegroup list.

And a Leman Russ better have a damn-sight better save than a Rhino, lol.

 gwarsh41 wrote:
And in doing this, Necrons ability to kill vehicles would be forever destroyed.

Good. When an entire army completely feths anything over (Necrons vs. vehicles, GK vs. Daemons, DE vs. Nids) it needs change somehow.

That's going about it the wrong way though. Just because Necrons had the ability to handle any armor doesn't mean they should lose the ability to deal with anything armored.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

BrotherHaraldus wrote:


3+ made sense for a LR, it is after all supposed to be nowhere near as tough as a Land Raider, even if it is tougher than a Rhino. There is no 2.5+ armour save, so we decided 3+ will do.

LR actually should be pretty close to a Land Raider, at one point it was actually even better armored than a Land Raider

14/14/14 versus 14/12/10, 4 HP VS 3.

The difference is larger than between a Predator and a Warbuggy.

Side armor is 13. I get what you're saying, but lets remember that these HP's are largely arbitrary and that stat's on both vehicles have changed back and forth over time, and the Leman Russ damn sure should have a better save than a Rhino

Side armour 13, then, kay. Was a while ago since I looked at the Ig codex. And you know what? Even then, the difference is still larger than between a Warbuggy and a Predator.

It should damn well not have as good save as a Land Raider, at least if we are going with one save for all sides of the vehicle.

But you still think a rhino deserves a 3+?

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

BrotherHaraldus wrote:


3+ made sense for a LR, it is after all supposed to be nowhere near as tough as a Land Raider, even if it is tougher than a Rhino. There is no 2.5+ armour save, so we decided 3+ will do.

LR actually should be pretty close to a Land Raider, at one point it was actually even better armored than a Land Raider

14/14/14 versus 14/12/10, 4 HP VS 3.

The difference is larger than between a Predator and a Warbuggy.

Side armor is 13. I get what you're saying, but lets remember that these HP's are largely arbitrary and that stat's on both vehicles have changed back and forth over time, and the Leman Russ damn sure should have a better save than a Rhino

Side armour 13, then, kay. Was a while ago since I looked at the Ig codex. And you know what? Even then, the difference is still larger than between a Warbuggy and a Predator.

It should damn well not have as good save as a Land Raider, at least if we are going with one save for all sides of the vehicle.

This seems rather arbitrary, then.

A Dreadnought, who's difference from a Land Raider is eight armor points, has a 2+. A Defiler, who's also eight armor points less and already has a 5++ gets a 2+ too.

A Leman Russ, who's 5 less than a Land Raider, gets a 3+, which is the same as a Rhino, which is ten less than a Land Raider.

What?

Walkers and Rhinos need it more. Dreadnoughts and Rhinos are terribly fragile, especially the Rhino giving up easy First Blood. The Defiler is massively overcosted and needs its 2+, otherwise it just falls over to things that it is too expensive to fall over to.

The Leman Russ can just park itself 72" from the enemy, rear to the table edge, making getting to its rear armour a difficult prospect. It does not need a 2+

And something as cheap as rhinos and razorbacks don't need as much durability as a 3+ save.

I mean the list just broke down into arbitrary free saves given to vehicles based on how you feel they need it, not based on the actual fluff or what works within the current mechanics.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Honestly, cheap light armored vehicles are supposed to give up first blood easily. You're not going to argue they should be cheap enough to easily spam while being tough as nails as well are you?

 Savageconvoy wrote:
That's going about it the wrong way though. Just because Necrons had the ability to handle any armor doesn't mean they should lose the ability to deal with anything armored.

It wouldn't, though. They'd still have Tesla, Gauss, Lances, Haywire-shenanigans, Scarabs, Warscythes, Deathrays etc. It'd nerf their anti-tank, but that's the entire point. It'd nerf everyone else too.

A 3+ does not make a Rhino tough as nails. It makes it more resistant, but one Lascannon hit or pretty much anything that could kill it in melee to begin with, will kill it.

Autocannon equivalents are what is too strong, and armour saves is our fix. YMMV.

But sure, I could imagine putting a Rhino at a 4+

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:
Walkers and Rhinos need it more. Dreadnoughts and Rhinos are terribly fragile, especially the Rhino giving up easy First Blood. The Defiler is massively overcosted and needs its 2+, otherwise it just falls over to things that it is too expensive to fall over to.

The Leman Russ can just park itself 72" from the enemy, rear to the table edge, making getting to its rear armour a difficult prospect. It does not need a 2+

So you're giving vehicles saves based on what they "need" to be competitive?

Are Leman Russes so much more common than Land Raiders that they need a worse save to make the Land Raider a better tank?

EDIT:
Basically, my problem is this: You're rendering armor value practically irrelevant. A dreadnought with a 2+ save is almost as survivable as a Leman Russ with a 3+ save, which is not how it should be - the Leman Russ has more armor and is a tougher vehicle. It should not be roughly equal in toughness to a dreadnought.