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.

These rules are not for everyone. Some players truly enjoy the current vehicle system in 40K and like that they either soak up a bunch of damage or go pop on the very first hit (in other words, they like vehicles that are quite random in their durability).

However some players, such as myself, feel this system doesn’t work very well. It creates an imbalance in some weapons when there really shouldn’t be a distinction. For example, if Terminators are just smaller versions of a Dreadnought, then why is a Krak Missile so much better at destroying a Dreadnought than a Terminator?

Since 40K is a game with a basic set of statistics that represent how your models perform, why use two different variations? Why not just stick with Toughness and Armor Save for all models (vehicles included) so that weapons work uniformly the same against heavily armored or non-heavily armored units?

I’ve also always thought while it should always be possible to hit a vehicle in it’s “weak spot” to cause extra damage, in general vehicle abilities should slowly degrade as they take more damage. The current rules allow this to a degree (weapons can be destroyed and the vehicle can be immobilized) but it tends to require a bunch of counters to track and is generally all-or-nothing (the vehicle can either move or it can’t).

What about a cinematically inspired situation where the vehicle has taken a pounding, with smoke pouring out of the hatches, but barely chugs on at a very slow pace, while the one living gunner blazes away with the last gun. Why can’t such a thing occur in the game of 40K?

My idea is to create a vehicle rules system that uses Toughness Wounds and Armor Saves instead of vehicle Armor Values for all models in the game. So what would the benefit of this system be over the current rules?

A) A consistent statline for all models in the game means the system is easier to learn and understand for beginners.

B) A consistent statline for all models in the game lessens the need for weapons and abilities to have extra special rules (one set for creatures and another set for vehicles).

C) A consistent statline for all models in the game eliminates the discrepancies in weapon effectiveness between creature and vehicle (such as a Krak missile vs. a Terminator and a Dreadnought).

D) Giving vehicles a Toughness, Wounds and Armor Save characteristic can be used to help highlight the differences between armies by giving their vehicles a unique quality (for example, Eldar vehicles could have a good Armor Save but poor Toughness and Wounds, while Imperial Guard vehicles could have mediocre Armor and but great Toughness and Wounds).

E) By giving vehicles a Wounds characteristic, their random durability is stabilized while still allowing for the possibility of critical hits that do extra damage. This would make Transports less of a deathtrap for models inside as they would generally be more durable.

F) By giving vehicles a Wounds characteristic, it presents a simple way to track the damage a vehicle has taken. The more wounds it has suffered, the more damaged it is and its performance can be easily altered to represent this while the only marker necessary to track this is a single dice or wound counter.

G) By giving walkers a Toughness, Wounds and Armor Save characteristic, the vast differences in combat performance between them and Monstrous Creatures is finally bridged. In fact, in the new system, Monstrous Creatures can follow the exact same rules for Walkers (for the most part).


As I see it, the potential negatives for this system would be as follows:

A) The game of 40K is not currently designed to utilize this system, and this is not a simple change. Not only would the core rules need to be re-written but a large chunk of the special rules in the game as they pertain to vehicle models would also need to be re-done. In addition, all vehicle and Monstrous Creature models in the game would likely need to have their points cost re-evaluated and their place within their respective armies re-balanced. This obviously means that such a system could not be implemented until a new edition of 40K was released and at that time all the current codexes were rendered obsolete ( in other words, a system “reset” ).

B) The difference between living creatures and mechanical vehicles in the game would be lessened. This could potentially degrade the unique feeling that vehicles have within the game.


The following is a set of core rule changes to take the current 40K vehicle rules into this new system. I tried to also make an exhaustive list of weapon/wargear/special rule changes across the entire game but I realized that this would be way too much of a project for me to attempt. So you’ll have to give me feedback based on just the basic concept and use your imagination as to how some of the weapons and vehicles in the game would be changed to fit this system. At the end, I’ll include some basic ideas about how I would personally design each army’s vehicles in the new system to fit their respective racial themes.

Please give me feedback on what you like, dislike, whether you’d prefer a system like this in a new edition of 40K or not and what you’d make the vehicle statlines look like in this new system, etc, etc.

Thanks for taking the time to read this wacky idea, I hope you like it!



VEHICLES AND MONSTROUS CREATURES
In this new system Vehicles and Monstrous Creatures follow almost all of the same rules. To make things clear, all Monstrous Creatures are now considered a vehicle (type: Walker) and follow all the rules for Walkers unless specified otherwise.


VEHICLE CHARACTERISTICS
A vehicle has the exact same statline as a normal creature with a few exceptions.

Type: Tells what vehicle special rules the model uses.

“-” Characteristics: Some Vehicles may have a “-” listed for some of their characteristic values (most commonly for WS, S, I & Ld). This simply means that the vehicle doesn’t have such a characteristic; a vehicle special rule may be used in some cases.


VEHICLE MOVEMENT
Vehicles move exactly as described in the current rulebook with the following changes:

1) A Vehicle that has under half of its starting wounds halves the total normal movement distance in may move in any given phase of a turn (to a minimum of 6” per phase). For example, a fast vehicle ( which normally can move up to 24” ) that has under half of its starting wounds remaining could only move up to 12” in the movement phase.

If the vehicle has random movement (either bonus movement or otherwise), halve the amount rolled for how far it actually moves.

2) A Walker under half of its starting wounds moves as an infantry even if it normally moves faster (if it moved as Jump Infantry or as a Beast, for example). A Walker that is down to its last wound always moves as infantry and as if it were in Difficult Terrain (although it may still re-roll the Difficult Terrain roll because it is a Monstrous Creature).

3) A vehicle that fails a Dangerous Terrain test suffers one wound with no saving throws of any kind allowed. If the Dangerous Terrain test requires two (or more) dice be rolled, each roll of ‘1’ indicates one wound has been suffered.


VEHICLE SHOOTING
Vehicles fire exactly as described in the current rulebook with the following changes:

A vehicle may fire one weapon for each wound it has remaining on its profile. Weapons that are fired in addition to any a vehicle may normally fire (such as a pintle-mounted Storm bolter) do not count against this total.

The limitation of how many Ordnance, Ordnance Barrage, Main and Defensive weapons a vehicle may fire still applies from the rulebook (including the 2 weapon limitation for walkers).


VEHICLE DAMAGE
Vehicles now take damage exactly as any other model in the game. Roll to wound based on the attack’s Strength versus the target’s Toughness value, then attempt a save if applicable.

When a vehicle suffers its final wound, roll a D6. On a 1-4, the vehicle is “Destroyed” as described in the rulebook. On a 5-6, the vehicle “Explodes” as described in the rulebook.

Walkers that are also Monstrous Creatures who suffer their final wound are simply removed from play as a casualty. They never become a wreck or explode.

CRITICAL WOUNDS
The Critical Wounds rules presented here apply to all multi-wound creatures in the game, not just to vehicles.

When a model suffers a hit by an attack with a Strength equal to its Toughness value or more, if the ‘to wound’ roll is a ‘6’ then the model has suffered a Critical Wound. Besides suffering the single wound, roll a further D6 for the model:

1-2: Stunned – the creature is knocked down or the vehicle’s crew has become disoriented.
 
Non-vehicle models (and any unit they are part of) immediately count as being pinned until the start of their next turn regardless of whether they can normally be pinned or not.

Vehicle models cannot move, shoot or make an Assualt move until the start of their next turn. If assaulted by the enemy, walkers still fight as normal, but with a -1 Attack penalty. They also may not sweeping advance or make a consolidation move (although they will pile-in if necessary).

3-4: The model takes an additional wound (2 in total) and also counts as being Stunned.

5-6: The model takes two additional wounds (3 in total) and also counts as being Stunned.

A vehicle that loses its final wound due to a Critical Wound automatically “Explodes” without rolling.

INSTANT DEATH
Vehicles do not suffer instant death like other multi-wound creatures. If a vehicle suffers an unsaved wound that would normally cause instant death instead it automatically suffers a Critical Wound regardless of what the ‘to wound’ roll was.

Special rules that prevent Instant Death have absolutely no effect on Critical Wounds.

ORDNANCE/BLAST WEAPONS
Vehicles are now hit by Blast and Ordnance markers like any other model in the game with the following exceptions.

Vehicle models that have the center hole of the Blast and Ordnance maker over them suffer one automatic hit. If the marker is over the vehicle model (but not the center hole) then the vehicle is hit on a D6 roll of '4+'. Ordnance weapons no longer halve their strength when the center hole isn’t over the vehicle model.

When a vehicle is wounded by an Ordnance weapon if the center hole of the marker is over the vehicle model, the wound is automatically a Critical Wound (as long as the Strength of the attack is equal or greater than the Target’s Toughness).

If the vehicle is part of a unit, this critical wound must be allocated to the model under the center hole of the marker.

Note that this rule applies only to vehicle (including Monstrous Creature) models. Non-Monstrous Creature multi-wound models are too small to be hit directly (sniped) by Ordnance weapons.

‘AP1’ WEAPONS
‘AP 1’ weapons are particularly good at punching right through a target. Because of this they cause a Critical Wound on a ‘to wound’ roll of ‘5+’ instead of just a ‘6’. Note that the attack’s Strength must still be equal or higher than the target’s Toughness in order to cause a Critical Wound in the first place. This rule applies to all multi-wound models in the game, not just vehicles.

‘AP –‘ WEAPONS
Attacks from weapons with an ‘AP –‘ quickly dissipate upon hitting their target. Because of this, they never cause Critical Wounds, no matter what their Strength. This rule applies to all multi-wound models in the game, not just vehicles.

OPEN-TOPPED VEHICLES
Open-Topped vehicles retain the “Vulnerable to Blasts/Templates” special rule (double hits). Beyond that, their weakness is represented by their reduced characteristics.

OBSCURED TARGETS & SMOKE LAUNCHERS
Vehicles no longer benefit from being “obscured”, instead they get a cover save like any other model. Remember that vehicle models cannot gain cover from size 1 area terrain. For non area-terrain, from the perspective of the firing model if intervening cover obscures 25% or more of the vehicle’s profile, the vehicle gains a cover save.

In the case of a vehicle squadron more than 50% of the vehicle models in the squadron must have 25% or more of their perspectives obscured by cover in order to gain a cover save. If the unit is in differing types of cover, use the type the majority of the vehicles (that can be hit) are in. If no majority exists, use the worst cover save of those available.

Smoke launchers are used exactly as presented in the codex except that they provide the vehicle with a 5+ cover save instead. Smoke launchers can be used even if the vehicle is Stunned by a Critical Wound.

SKIMMERS MOVING FAST
Skimmers that move fast as described in the rulebook gain a 5+ invulnerable save. Skimmers that are Stunned by a Critical Wound no longer count as moving fast regardless of how far they moved in their last movement phase.

Skimmers that are hit during their own movement phase (such as from a Death or Glory! attack or moving through a minefield) use the current position at the time of the attack to determine if they count as moving fast. At the point of the attack if they are more than 6” (in total displacement) from where they started the movement phase then they count as moving fast.

 
VEHICLES AND ASSAULTS

TANK SHOCK
To determine if a vehicle can Tank Shock another vehicle out of the way compare Toughness values of the two vehicles. If the vehicle being pushed out of the way has an equal or greater Toughness value, is Stunned from a Critical Wound, or is an immobile vehicle, then it doesn’t move out of the way and the Tank Shock ends.

Death or Glory! attacks cause a Critical Wound on a ‘to wound’ roll of ‘5+’ instead of the normal ‘6’ as long as the attack’s Strength is equal or greater than the target’s Toughness. The only way for a Death or Glory! attack to stop a tank (and prevent the model from being squished) is to either destroy the vehicle or cause it to become Stunned from a Critical Wound.

INFANTRY ASSUALTING VEHICLES
When infantry attacks a vehicle without a WS, if the vehicle is Stunned from a Critical Wound (regardless of how far it moved in its previous movement phase) or did not move in its previous movement phase then it is automatically hit by close combat attacks.

If the vehicle moved 6” or less in its last movement phase it is hit on rolls of ‘4+’.

If the vehicle moved more than 6” in its last movement phase it is hit on rolls of ‘6+’.

A non-Stunned skimmer always counts as having moved more than 6” in its previous movement phase for the purposes of rolling ‘to hit’.


When fighting against a vehicle without a WS, no models are actually locked into combat. The attacking models engage the target, resolve their attacks and the combat ends. No combat resolution ( steps 3-6 of “Resolve Combats” ) is performed.

The vehicle is free to move off in its own movement phase, and the enemy models may be shot while still in base contact with the vehicle. If the vehicle is still in base contact with the enemy when its own Assault phase rolls around, no attacks may be made against the vehicle.

GRENADES
Grenades are used in the same situations against vehicles as in the rulebook (except where specified otherwise). Since a properly placed grenade is designed to cause tremendous damage to a vehicle, all unsaved wounds caused by grenades cause Critical Wounds as long as the attack’s Strength is equal or greater than the target’s Toughness. Grenades now have the following profiles when being used against vehicles:

Frag Grenades:    Str: 4, AP: 6
Haywire Grenades:    Always wounds vehicles on a ‘to wound’ roll of ‘4+’ regardless of the Target’s Toughness. AP: -, but on a ‘to wound’ roll of ‘6’ the attack counts as AP: 1. Haywire grenades never cause Critical Wounds. Haywire Grenades cannot be used against Monstrous Creature vehicles.
Krak Grenades:    Str: 6, AP: 4
Melta Grenades:    Str: 8, AP: 1
Photon Grenades:    cannot be used against non-MC vehicles
Plasma Grenades:    Str: 5, AP: 4
Tankbusta Bombs:    Str: 6+D3, AP: 3
Super Stikkbomz:    Str: D6x2 (to a max of 10), AP: D6

WALKERS IN AN ASSAULT
The rules for Walkers in an Assault now naturally apply to Monstrous Creatures as well (yes, that means grenades may be used against Monstrous Creatures now).

A Walker Stunned by a Critical Wound fights with -1 Attack in close combat (to a minimum of 1 Attack). If a Walker is Stunned multiple times in the same turn, it still only suffers a single -1 Attack penalty. A Stunned Walker may not make a Sweeping Advance or Consolidation move although it will still pile-in if required.

Grenade attacks made against a Walker only hit on a roll of ‘6’ regardless of Weapon Skill. However if a Walker is Stunned at the start of an Initiative step that a model makes a grenade attack, then they attempt to hit based on the normal comparison of Weapon Skills instead.

MONSTROUS CREATURES
Monstrous Creatures attacking a vehicle in close combat tend to cause considerable amounts of damage. Because of this, Monstrous Creatures attacking any vehicle (including other Monstrous Creatures) in close combat always wound on a ‘to wound’ roll of at least ‘5+’ even if the target’s Toughness would normally dictate otherwise.

Monstrous Creatures that use a weapon which augments their Strength (such as a Dreadnought Close combat weapon) may not utilize this rule.


VEHICLE PROFILE BRAINSTORM

In this system I see the Armor Save characteristic representing the quality of the vehicle’s armor. A Space Marine or Eldar vehicle would have advanced armor and would therefore have a great armor save, while an Ork vehicle (although tough and durable) would have a very poor Armor Save. Vehicles with really exceptional armor might even have a separate invulnerable save (like a 5+ invulnerable save).

The Wounds characteristic would simply represent how bulky a vehicle is and how much damage it takes to destroy it. A light vehicle like a Vyper or Sentinel would have 2 Wounds, while a big vehicle like a Land Raider would have 5 Wounds (or perhaps even more). Since Wounds are tied to how many weapons a vehicle can shoot and how soon it starts to slow down careful consideration has to be given to how many Wounds a vehicle gets compared to how many weapons it can take. In general, a vehicle will be given at least one Wound for each weapon it has, and in most cases at least one extra. That way the vehicle can still keep on firing all its weapons until it has taken a couple of Wounds.

The Toughness characteristic would represent the overall durability of the vehicle design. Imperial Guard would be the kings here, although Space Marines wouldn’t be far behind. I envision the Toughness of all vehicles falling in between T6 and T8.

T6 would be only for open-topped light vehicles, as this would allow a fusillade of lasgun or bolter fire to potentially damage or destroy such a light vehicle, which seems appropriate.

T7 would likely be the default medium vehicle Toughness. Changing a vehicle’s Armor Save or number of wounds would really separate the Toughness of most vehicles.

T8 would be the heavy vehicle Toughness. I could see the argument being made that T7 and 8 should be the mid-level Toughness while T9 is reserved for the Heavy stuff (like a Land Raider an Monolith). The only problem with this is that once a vehicle is T9, it really gets protected from Critical Wounds from any army that doesn’t have a bunch of S9 weapons. If Land Raiders, Monoliths and perhaps even Leman Russes were made T9 some armies would really need a drastic change in their weapons in order to be able to taken on several of these heavy vehicles.

Only playtesting could really determine what would be fair Toughness values. A case could even be made for T5 or T10 vehicles, but in general I’d imagine T10 would be reserved only for reinforced Bunkers and since T5 is the bike level Toughness, it feels “right” for even light vehicles to be a little Tougher than that.


SPACE MARINE VEHICLE PROFILES
In my mind, the defining characteristic of the Space Marines would be a good armor save on their vehicles, combined with a pretty good Toughness and Wounds all around. The armor save for nearly all Space Marine vehicles would be 3+. I would hesitate to give any vehicle a 2+ armor save as, combined the high Toughness and several wounds, it would make it too durable against those armies that don’t have access to many AP2 weapons (Orks). I would envision Land Raiders having a 3+/5+ save to represent their incredible armor.


ELDAR/DARK ELDAR VEHICLE PROFILES
The Eldar would be defined by a great armor save (3+ Save) but a lower Toughness and slightly less Wounds. Obviously the Wraithlord’s profile would need to drastically change to fit in with this theory, but it could be given a 5+ invulnerable save to make up for a drop in Toughness (likely back down to T7 or even T6). In fact, Vypers should be one of those rare T5 vehicles since Eldar bikes are only T4. After some playtesting it could prove that the “Skimmers Moving Fast” rule should become a 4+ invulnerable save instead of a 5+ in order to protect these light types of skimmers.

If T9 was used for Land Raiders, Leman Russes and Necrons, the Lance rule could still be used to say that it always treats the Toughness of any target as T8. This would allow Lance weapons to still cause Critical Wounds on these tough targets.


IMPERIAL GUARD VEHICLE PROFILES
The Imperial Guard would be defined by their Toughness. Their armor would only be a 4+ at best (except for the Demolisher who would have a 3+), but their vehicles would be on the higher end of the Toughness scale with an ample amount of Wounds. So while a Leman Russ would be as Tough as a Land Raider, its Armor save would be much worse. I think this would be really fitting to show the difference between the state of the art armor of the Space Marine and the rugged, yet simple design of the Leman Russ.


ORK VEHICLE PROFILES
Ork vehicles would be defined by their Wounds. Their armor would be crap, usually no better than a 5+ and their Toughness wouldn’t be very hot either because of the open-topped nature of most of their vehicles. However, they would have 1-2 more wounds on their vehicles than a similar type of vehicle in another race. This would really represent that while Ork vehicles are pretty ramshackle and lack a quality type of armor, there is just something about them that keeps them chugging forward as they take a ton of damage (as pieces of the vehicle fly off, it just keeps coming).


TAU VEHICLE PROFILES
The Tau’s standard vehicles would have pretty much the same profile as Space Marine vehicles (although they lack the heavy tank of a Land Raider), while their light vehicles would be just a little Tougher than the lightest Eldar vehicles. In short, the Tau would be pretty well-rounded like they are now.


NECRON VEHICLE PROFILES
The Necron Monolith would be one of the biggest benefactors of this new system. We would be able to get rid of all its ludicrous special rules and just make it big and beefy Toughness and Wounds wise. Making a Monolith a T9, W5, 3+/5+ beast (just like a Land Raider) would make it very, very durable yet ultimately killable by any race if they put enough fire into it.

As for how Necrons would actually damage enemy vehicles in this new system, that would require a pretty big change. I would suggest that against vehicles, they get a modified ‘rending’ rule: Against vehicles, any ‘to wound’ roll of ‘6’ causes a wound (probably with no Armor Save allowed) regardless of the target’s Toughness. This would mean that Necrons wouldn’t generally get any Critical Wounds (as the Strength of most of their weapons isn’t high enough), but they would rather easily “tear away” at enemy vehicles. This seems very fitting to me compared with their fluff (where their guns are supposed to decompose the target). Again, only playtesting would determine if this change would be acceptable to make Necrons function properly in this new system.

Actually, giving Necrons this special rule against all models ( ‘to wound’ rolls of a ‘6’ cause a wound with no armor save allowed) would probably go a long way towards balancing the army against Marines and other 3+ save armies.


TYRANID VEHICLE PROFILES
Obviously Tyranids don’t have any “vehicles” per se, but Monstrous Creatures would now follow most of the rules for Walkers, meaning that Monstrous Creatures can now suffer Critical Wounds and when down to their final Wound they are only able to fire one weapon and move as if in Difficult Terrain. Obviously this would necessitate a points reduction on Tyranid Monstrous Creatures.

 

 

 

I diagree that you would have to wait for a re-do of the game. In fact , I think that would keep the change from ever seeing the light of day. New dex all 'round. Poo.

More likely a "wargear/citys of death" type of thing. Here's the rules and stats if you want to play like this.


Onward... some things I like /dislike/would like to see.

Dislike: crit-hits. Would rather see each hit that equals or exceeds T do D3 wounds. This would include rending , melta and tank hunter

A simple chart could finish this off , something like:
-1 wound = lose a weapon/attack
-2 wounds = lose a weapon/attack
-3 wounds = -.25Up movement
-4 wounds = -.25Up movement (monsterous creatures could/would max here just to give them a biological feel)
-5,6 wounds = lose a weapon each
-7 wounds = -.25 movement , lose fast designation
-8,9 wounds = -1 point BS each
-10+ = Imobilized

So , for example if a vehical has lost 5 wounds it would have lost 3 weapons and .50 (half) of its movement. I envision a higher wound count than you most likely do for vehicals so as to give them that slow degragation feel.

I would also like to see a T and armor save per side , this would help in broading the range of vehical difference.

You would need to rework some of your rules to fit my ideas in. Or not.

Next
Sincity

Thanks for the feedback sincity.

As for introducing this sort of rule via a supplement, there would be absolutely no way. Once you start going through the codexes you realize that there are simply dozens upon dozens of special rules for dealing with vehicle Armor Penetration. Converting those rules over to this system while maintaining the rule's basic effectiveness is no easy task. . .I tried to do it and it would be a bear (and players would never be able to remember all the changes if they were in a seperate book).

Besides, this would really alter the balance of armies without some drastic points adjustment and in some cases I believe even bigger limitations would be required (like some 0-1s, or swapping units around in the FOC).


As for your suggestions, one of the things I personally believe is crucial is to keep things idiodically simple when possible. My system has only a few simple degrading factors to keep track of on each vehicle:

1) If the vehicle is under 1/2 is starting wounds it moves at 1/2 speed.
2) The vehicle may only fire one weapon per wound it has remaining.
3) The vehicle may beome stunned (cannot move or shoot until the start of its next turn).


I made the system that simple for a very good reason, so it would be ridiculously easy for players to remember (and can be done with a simple D6 in most cases). While your system would clearly give more latitude, players would constantly need to refer back to a chart to keep track of what status their vehicle was at.

So while I like your suggestions, I think they would make keeping track of vehicle damage just as cumbersome (if not more so) than the current rules; something I am trying to avoid.


Lastly, what don't you like about Critical Wounds?

WarZone rules again...can't believe Target had to drop that game...

*scratches chin* Unless these rules are also an oblique solution to the problem of existing multi-wound T4 guys going pop too easily, I would leave ID in for vehicles. F'rinstance, why should a Land Speeder really be that much tougher than a Marine Attack bike? Maybe some one-man open topped vehicles could have T3 (7) or T4 (6) or something similar to represent the chance of a more powerful attack to kill the driver outright, a la Krootox - small arms fire might patter mostly harmlessly off the armoured hull of a Ravager, but a Griffon round powerful enough to instant-kill the crew should do quite a bit more damage.

Possibly you could reword critical as "when a vehicle or MC is wounded, its owner must roll x+ on 1D6, where x the amount by which the die roll exceded to wound the vehicle" - so if a T5 Land Speeder is hit by a multi laser (S6) which rolls a 4 to wound, the speeder would have to roll a 2+ to avoid a critical since the laser exceeded what it needed to wound by one. Vehicles with higher T would thus suffer proportionately fewer criticals than those with lower toughness. This would also neatly fix assault cannon, as rending wounds would be incapable of inflicting criticals. Then say the ammount by which you fail to avoid a critical determines the extent of the hit - so if you fail by one, can't shoot, two can't shoot or move, three -1 A or lose a weapon, shooter's choice, four you can't move any more, five is an extra D3 wounds and 6 is ID. (these effects are just for sake of example) That puts criticals in one die roll. It might also be interesting to have this rule to apply to characters, should the pendulum swing away from fist-wielding sergeants...

I had had an idea about using multiple saves to streamline superheavies into games - based in part on the invulnerable save type system (field/daemon/dodge/etc.) that's shown up in this part of the board from time to time which basically did the reverse to hull points of what your system here does to AV. I'll have something half-intelligent to say about this later...I think...

Great concept Yak, keeping rules as consistent as possible really does help game playability.  You can see it in games like Warmachine and Starship troopers, where vehicles and infantry are governed predominantly by the same rule set.

Perhaps I missed it, but there doesn't seem to be a mechanic for making a vehicle weaker when shot at from the flank or rear.  A simple one might be "Shots from the side reduce a vehicle's toughness by 1 and shots from the rear reduce it by 2"

Example: A T7 vehicle would be T7 from the front, T6 from the side, and T5 from the rear.

I like what you're on to, yakface.

Might I suggest that units have varying armor saves for their different sides? A Leman Russ, for example, has AV10 in its rear, compared to 14 in the front. That different should be reflected with a save, perhaps, as such: Front Armor: 4+ Sider Armor: 4+, Rear Armor: 5+.

Just an idea I had floating around.

CK

I'd actually play in a tournament using something like that Yak.

Flames of War gets away with "Front" and "Rear" armor with some mechanics thrown in for "top" attacks (indirect fire and infantry assaults).

Way back in the days I started this game, vehicles actually DID have toughness and wound charts, and get this, no armor saves. It was built into the number of wounds they simply started with.

I like the idea (making vehicles more reliable), but I'm not sure that your system allows for sufficient diversity without loading up on special rules. As I understand it, vehicles have two effective degrees of freedom, or toughness and wounds. Where current vehicles can have any of five different AVs and many modifiers to the damage table (extra armor, Holofields, SMF, etc), you have three toughnesses for the vast majority of vehicles and somewhere between two and four wounds for most vehicles (I'm guessing here, since a Monolith would have five).

I don't see the point of differentiating vehicles by armor save. The vast majority of weapons that are at all effective against T7+ are at least AP3, and you're not allowing for 2+ saves. Absolutely everything that's at all effective against T7+ is at least AP4, so there's also little point in a 4+ save. Such a system means that, by and large, a T7 W4 4+ vehicle is more durable than a T7 W3 3+ vehicle.

Just looking at your preliminary ideas for the vehicles of various factions, I just don't see the variety we need developing. Eldar and Marine vehicles would simply be very fragile next to Guard and Ork vehicles. Granted, this could be alleviated in large part through vehicle upgrades, just as the Eldar do now with Holofields, but it seems like a comprehensive vehicle overhaul would easily lend itself to this sort of upgrade, and I don't see where to fit them in here.

What if we make vehicle saves more meaningful by making them all invulnerable? One large benefit of this is that you can now use the entire spectrum of saves (excepting 2+, for obvious reasons). It allows the save to represent both armor and difficulty of targeting. Orks could make do with a 6+ and massive numbers of wounds, Marines could walk around with a 4+, Land Raiders and the Monolith could reach 3+ naturally, the Eldar could come stock with a 4+ and a Holofield that makes it a 3+, etc. This also creates a natural niche for Melta weaponry, and perhaps a different niche for AP1 weaponry, by allowing them to have special effects on vehicle saves.

Interesting idea. I like the idea of using toughness, wounds and saves for vehicles.

But I don't like the idea of a bolter being able to take out a Leman Russ. Even on a 6. I've seen what Necrons can do to vehicles, I shudder at the thought of SMurfs being able to waltz up to the front of a Battle Tank and rapdifire it to death.

I thnk the toughnesses should be higher for vehicles. Right now, a lascannon has a 33% chance of doing something to AV14. So why not make Land Raiders and Russes T10 to give the same rate? Sentinels could be T6 with 2 wounds and a 6+ save (so bolters still need a 6+ to wound, like now). This would save repointing things.

Here's a simple formula:

Vehicle Toughness = AV minus 4.
Basic # wounds = 3 -1 for open-topped, +1 if side armour is >12,+1 if rear armour is >10, +3 for Ork vehicles. Extra Armour gets you an extra wound.
Basic Vehicle save = 5+(i). Skimmers get +1, "Tanks" get +1, open-topped get -1, Ork Vehicles get -1, any vehicle gets -1 when shot in the rear arc. Holofield type things grant +1 save.

So Sentinel would have T6, 2 wounds, 6+ save
Rhino with extra armour would have T7, 4 wounds, 5+ save
Chimera would have T8, 3 wounds, 4+ save
LRBT would have T10, 4 wounds, 4+ save
Demolisher would have T10, 5 wounds, 4+ save
Land Raider with extra armour would have T10, 6 wounds, 4+ save (special: save from rear is not reduced to 5+)

Falcon with holofield would be T9, 5 wounds, 3+ save


Instead of Criticals, have EVERY wound dealt cause a roll on the following table:
1: Deal an extra wound
2: Defensive weapon destroyed
3: Defensive weapon destroyed
4: Top Speed reduced by 50% of starting value
5: Top Speed reduced by 50% of starting value
6: Main/Ordnance weapon destroyed.

AP- weapons subtract one from this rol (minimum roll =1)l, AP1 weapons add one (max roll =6).

Lance weapons treat any toughness >8 as equal to 8. Melta weapons in their '2d6' range deal double wounds if vehicle fails its save.

Other rules as Yak's post.

This way, you wouldn't have stunned and shaken vehicles sitting there and being useless (frustrating in a game), but every hit you did would accomplish something. Vehicles would slow down and shoot less and less until they were sitting immobile and firing only their pintle-mount, before the coup-de-grace was administered.


Maybe for MCs have a different wounding table:

1-2 no extra effect
3 Off-balance: may only shoot a single weapon next turn
4 Confused: may not move in next turn's movement phase
5. Upset: Moves 2d6" in a random direction next turn (counts as charging enemies contacted; friendlies must move out of the way); may shoot but may not assault in assault phase.
6 Rage: moves towards, shoots and assaults nearest unit (friend or foe) in LOS next turn.


Just some ideas...

Well, thanks everyone for your feedback. It has been very enlightening. I'll try to tackle responses to everyone in this one reply.


@Wight Widow:
Are these rules similar to Warzone? I wouldn't know, I never played the game, but I'd be interested to hear how they are similar.

As for Instant Death vs. Vehicles, the only the very lightest vehicles would be T5 and therefore eligible for Instant Death (the Vyper is the only one I'm thinking of right now). These types of light vehicles are only usually going to have 2 perhaps a max of 3 Wounds anyway so an automatic Critical Wound is a pretty serious effect on them.

It would be easy enough to apply the Insant Death to vehicles, but in reality there just aren't going to be many vehicles (nor should there IMO) that would actually be able to be instant-killed.

As for your idea on changing Critical Wounds, it is a pretty good idea, but its a bit complex (IMO) for easy consumption and it would mean that a powerful wepaon (like a Lascannon) would have a really good chance to cause a Critical Wound on a light vehicle with every wound, which would basically make light vehicles go down to every Lascannon shot they take.

In my mind, a Critical Wound is something that happens only occasionally when a firer happens to hit a weak spot in the vehicle, not just something that happens every time a vehicle is hit by a heavy weapon.

I was also attempting to get rid of as many extra rolls as possible, trying to streamline the system and make the rolls everyone is already used to take care of all the details. If you add a seperate roll in to see if a Critical hit occurs now you have:

1) to hit the vehicle.
2) to wound the vehicle.
3) vehicle saving throw.
4) roll to see if critical hit occurs.
5) roll to see result of critical hit.


That's a lot of rolls in my book for a single attack. Any chance to combine stuff together into a single roll I think is worth taking even if it isn't necessarily the most comprehensive mechanic.


@Russ:
I did not have any different Toughness or Armor facings, instead relying more on the framework that Monstrous Creatures currently have (one Toughness for everything).

It wouldn't be very hard to include multiple Toughnesses and/or Saving Throws based on the direction the vehicle is being hit from. Having differing saving throws would seem to make more "sense" than Toughness (which represents the overall sturdiness of the vehicle), but having different Toughnesses would certainly alleviate the issue of having T9 vehicles that are really difficult to kill for some armies.


@Corpsman of Krieg:
Similar to Russ, I think your idea is great and could easily be incorporated. I think differing armor saves based on directional firing would be the way to go over differing Toughnesses.


@Flatlander:
I remember those Rogue Trader days too, but those rules were ridculously complex in all sorts of silly ways. As for a tournament using these rules, it would require a whole crap load of work to make it even close to fair and balanced.


@Gotchaye:
You bring up some of the best points. I know you don't see the point of differing armor saves in a system like this, but I think you're forgetting that a bunch of weapons that really couldn't hurt vehicles before now have a chance to do so if they fire enough shots (or get lucky), and that's where the importance of the armor save comes into play.

Lasguns and Hellguns (S3) would be able to potentially hurt light vehicles (T5 & 6) meaning the quality of armor saves would be important to protect the vehicle.

Bolters (S4) would be able to hurt most medium vehicles, like Rhinos, Razorbacks, etc (T7). Again, the quality of the vehicle's armor is really going to help stop these attacks.

Heavy Bolters and other S5 weapons are going to have a slim chance to damage even heavier vehicles like Predators, Hammerheads, etc (T8). The fact that an Imperial Guard tank would have a 4+ save while a SM vehicle has a 3+ save would suddenly be very important.

The same thing applies to many of the S6 weapons (like Multi-lasers, Shiruken Cannons & Scatter Lasers) all of which don't have a great AP value.

So while the vehicle's armor save isn't really going to make a difference against a Railgun, Lascannon, Krak Missile or any other AT weapon, it will against the hail of smaller guns that can slowly wear out a vehicle.


Making the saves invulnerable is an interesting idea, but I am personally dead set against any invulnerable save being better than 4+. I think it makes the game far too much luck based, and not a whole lot of fun for players.

However, if I had complete control over 40K (nice dream), I would also bring back a very moderate Strength based Armor Save modifier system.

Str4 or less: No armor save modifier.
S5-6: -1 armor save modifier.
S7-8: -2 armor save modifier.
S9-10: -3 armor save modifier.

Soime weapons would be designated as armor piecers and recieve an extra -1 to their modifier (like current AP1 weapons) while others would be designated as poor armor piercers and have one less negative to their armor save modifier (such as current AP - weapons).

An armor save system like this would indeed work much better with my vehicle rule idea, but I'm not entirely convinced that armor saves still wouldn't be an important factor.

I think that you're just stuck a bit in the current mindset of the weapons that can hurt vehicles, not thinking that players may want to use their line troops to try to whittle down vehicles in some cases.


@Strangelooper:
Bolters wouldn't be able to take out a Leman Russ (it would either be T8 or 9). But yes, in general many vehicles would be able to take damage from some lesser weapons now, and why not really?

Bolters are man portable rocket-launchers in many ways and does it not make sense that if they fire enough rounds at a vehicle target they should be able to do a little damage to it?

Also, you're still comparing what it takes for a current weapon to damage a current vehicle. That isn't the right mindset, since current vehicles can die on every single damage roll, and nearly every glancing or penetrating hit has a serious impact on the vehicle's ability to function.

In my system, that isn't usually true. It should be slightly easier for vehicle's to take a wound then it is for them to take a damage roll currently because losing a single wound isn't generally as devestating as a current damage roll is.

Also, for your damage suggestions you've gone back to things that would require counters or cards to keep track of (weapons destroyed, variable speed reductions, etc).

One of the things I am most proud of in my system is that very little damage tracking is needed (and what is, is quite intuitive IMHO). If a new system doesn't make it easier to track damage than the current vehicle rules, there is really little reason for change.



Thanks again everyone for the feedback and I'd love to hear more of what you think.


1) Do you think either differing Toughnesses and/or Armor Saves based on the direction the attack comes from would be a good idea? If so, do you think it should be Toughness or Armor Saves that are reduced (or both)?

Would you favor a system that has reduced values for the rear only, or a 3-way system for front/side/rear?


2) I've also decided that T9 vehicles would be okay for Land Raiders/Monoliths/Leman Russes. All armies should have some S9 or equivilant weapons that would give them a chance to cause Critical Wounds. This deficiency should really be fixed on the army level rather than trying to shoehorn the system into the current range of weapons.

Eldar/Dark Eldar would have Lance weapons that would keep the T9 vehicles at T8. Ork Tankbustas could be given some sort of ability that makes their Rokkits S9 (or perhaps the Tank Hunters/Tankbusta skill would always let a model with wound a vehicle model on a 5 or 6 regardless of the target's Toughness and would cause a Critical Wound on a '5+' as well).

The Tyranid AT weapons would have to totally be re-worked. Their lack of AP would make the possibilty of Tyranids killing heavy vehicles by shooting nearly impossible.

Sisters of Battle would also probably need something, as low strength Rending Hits wouldn't ever cause Critical Wounds (which I like), but the Exorcist being only S8 would also make it impossible to cause Critical Wounds on T9 vehicles (although a ton of S8 AP1 wounds is still pretty good at taking out vehicles).

What do you think? Is T9 acceptable when the only critical (extra) damage can only come from S9-10 weapons (which only certain armies only have access to currently)?

I did not have any different Toughness or Armor facings, instead relying more on the framework that Monstrous Creatures currently have (one Toughness for everything).

It wouldn't be very hard to include multiple Toughnesses and/or Saving Throws based on the direction the vehicle is being hit from. Having differing saving throws would seem to make more "sense" than Toughness (which represents the overall sturdiness of the vehicle), but having different Toughnesses would certainly alleviate the issue of having T9 vehicles that are really difficult to kill for some armies.

It's just that the Chimera keeps popping into my head, here's a vehicle that is rock hard from the front, but small arms can take out from the flank.  Reducing the armor save on the side still wouldn't emulate that. 

Mind you, I'm not suggesting that each vehicle have a different toughness stat for each armor facing (although that would work) but rather a general rule for all vehicles that side shots are -1 toughness and rear shots are -2.  Of course, this still doesn't fix my Chimera example, or emulat the land raider or monolith, but these vehicles could have special rules:

Chimera Special rule: "Shots against the side facing count as rear"

Land Raider/Monolith: "Shots from any facing count as shots from front"

 

I really like the idea and the responses put up here.

I don't know if working the current Save and AP system works well for it though, as I currently think it has a lot of problems.

This would require a complete re haul of the rules for a lot of things, specifically transport ability. By making Vehicles that much more durable you've made certain strategies too good. Being able to almost ensure that a Land Raider can continue to move at full speed through two turns of fire would mean that you can reliably deliver Assault Terminators.

Making Monoliths even more durable to stay around would likewise make Necrons very durable in the event that they can keep teleporting/WBB'ing. The worst offender is in the case of light transport vehicles like the Trukk and Raider. With a toughness and multiple wounds it could take a bit to knock one down, which is troublesome given how many can be put on the field in a Wytch Cult of KoS army.

Not that I wouldn't love the idea if it were imp implemented in a 5th edition of 40k, I think if it were worked into the game system it'd be much more preferable to the system we currently have.

In a realy. really old copy of the citadel journal (waaaay back when it was still A4 sized) this very idea had been put up by the then developers of the day as experimental vehicle rules. (In fact, what you write, yak, about armour saves is the same kind of reasoning they put into the article). If anyone has that CJ (I don't know of I still have mine), it'd be interesting to compare the two. The only difference in "critical wounds" was that they had (as I remember) a 1-2 immob, 3-4 boom, 5-6 big boom! The article argued that Space Marine Vehicles would have a better armour save, but fewer wounds and toughness to emphasise how much high tech SM vehicles are, as oppposed to IG stuff, which would be more sturdy.

Re Toughness or Armour Save adjustment for sides/rear: I was going to suggest exactly what RussWakelin suggested! Armour saves should stay the same, toughness should drop on the sides and back.

I still think that T10 is reasonable for Monolith/LandRaider/LemanRuss front though. The critical hits have the ability to burn through 50% of the wounds in one shot...I think that for those rock-hard armours, that should require a railgun/demolisher cannon/warp blast.

One outcome that I'd really like to see from any new vehicle rules, is that it would be almost impossible to kill a hard vehicle in a single turn. As I've said, I hate multimelta bikes...

Yak,

This is a very compelling idea and I congratulate you for spending the time that you obviously did in putting it together. Overall I find your system vastly superior to the 4th ed vehicle rules.

That being said, I share the concern expressed above about transports being too reliable under this system. Perhaps a manditory disembarkment is called for under one of the critical hit ranges perhaps 4,5, or 6?

I agree with Gobsmasha. I could see how this system would bring back the Rhino rush with a vengeance. That said, this is an incredible system, and will continue helping with the input by answering the questions you've posed:

1. I think that, as Russ suggested, a Toughness decrease would work, but in tandem with an armor reduction, both of which would be scaled down in their drasticness to complement the other.

So, vehicles (with the exception of special rules for those certain LRs/Monoliths etc) would have a universal -1 Toughness modifier on the sides and the same for the rear, while the armor modifer would be the same for the sides as the front (with those certain exceptions again), and a -1 modifier in the back. So, if a Chimera has T8 with a 5+ Sv in the front, it would have T7 Sv5+ on the sides and T7 Sv6+ in the back.

2. T9 is acceptable, IMHO. I think that it could be offset for those tougher units by saying that a Critical Hit has a -1 wound modifier on it, meaning that a Critical that would drop 3 wounds on a tank removes only 2 instead for the said "tougher" tank.

CK

@yak: WarZone when I played it - back pre-box set - used the same profile between infantry and vehicles. In the original book, no difference was made between the two in terms of rules or profiles at all, as the game's scope was somewhere between Necromunda and 2nd-edition 40k and the most notable vehicles were a walker about the size of a husky Wraithlord, a one-man jump pack/TL ML combination, and a golf-cart sized support vehicle that mounted a machine gun but whose rider was equipped with a sword for fighting off assault troops who got too close and was most destructive when used as a scythed chariot. Additional rules were introduced later when they brought in humungous VW bug-type APCs and tanks that looked like a Leman Russ riding on top of a Leman Russ. The biggest problem was that with the same profile and a D20 system, anti-tank weapons were even better at killing infantry - the worst "save" an infantryman could have was 5% as opposed to 16.6% with D6s and there was no toughness.

Personally I like the idea that more powerful weapons have a better chance at inflicting more damage, but reading over your rules again I think they are more streamlined than was my first impression.

A few more thoughts:

AV10 = T5
AV11
AV12 = T7
AV13
AV14 = T8
open-topped = T 3 or 4 (as for AV)
i.e. WS BS S T W I A LD SV
Sentinel 3 3 5 3(5) 4 3 1 - 5+/4+ depending on doctrine
Speeder - 4 - 4(5) 3 - - - 3+ (one less wound reflects greater chance of crashing)
Chimera - 3 - 7 5 - - - 4+ (+1 W for being 12 not 11)
Predator - 4 - 8 4 - - - 4+ (since its closed-topped, armour of crew taken into account with T)
Dreadnought 4 4 6(10) 7 5 4 2(3) - 4+, counts as invulnerable if venerable
Russ - 3 - 8 5 - - - 4+
Super-Heavy - 3 - 8 10 - - - 4+, possibly invulnerable/Bionics/FNP

You could have a rule that if a unit disembarks within 12" and in LoS of an enemy unit then the enemy unit gets a free round of shooting at the disembarking unit.

That would be awesome if it applied to Drop Pods...

Personally, I'm not completely convinced these rules would make transport vehicles over-powered.

I didn't write anything about it in my original rules (oops!) but I had planned that an embarked unit would have to bail out (and take a pinning test) only when the vehicle suffered a critical wound. Otherwise they get to stay embarked until the vehicle is destroyed, at which point they count as entangled as normal.


I think the mindset most of you are thinking of is that vehicles can still only be destroyed by the AT weapons in your army. What you may be not processing is that, especially against the light open-topped vehicles, basic weapons, like bolters would do some pretty serious damage to them if you fired enough shots.

I can honestly only see the possibility of open-topped transport being too powerful, since enclosed transports would still require their passengers to essentially sit around for a turn if they want to assualt people.

Even if there was one army, perhaps Dark Eldar, that was too effective under these rules, it would/should really be an army adjustment to fix the issue rather than re-writing the whole vehicle concept just for them (at least IMO).

It's kind of funny because a friend of mine and I were talking about something similar but going with giving all models an AV and then roll on a damage table similar to that of the vehicle damage table.

Sounds like you're trying to make 40k into confrontation, Happy.

 As long as it makes tau even better, I like it!

Just kidding. Anyways, I think Yakface's system is exellent, and it should be applied immediatly. Thanks for the great idea.

Yakface, I think you missed something basic and very important. Games like 40k are interesting in the long run, because they allow lots of choices. Your approach would take away the very important choice between the two rather distinct threats of vehicles / creatures.

Its like taking away all the special rules. Sure the game would be easier to learn, but it also would be more boring.

Raider,

I didn't miss that, I actually listed that exact point as one of my 'cons' of using such a system back in my original post.

However, I think the positives still outweigh that one negative quite a bit (IMHO).

Besides, vehicles would still move, shoot and fight in close combat differently from creatures, so I think they'd still feel sufficiently "different".

Hey Yak,

What do you think of presenting this to Jervis at AdeptiCon?  It may be something of interest to him.

Talk to ya' later,

 Greg

Jervis is the guest of honor at Adepticon?

Perhaps. Though I always feel a bit sheepish about presenting rules I've written to the studio people. They must get that crap all the time.

But perhaps I'll put my insecurities away and pimp the idea out; I guess it can't hurt!

Don't mean to resurrect this thread but I disagree that basic weapons should be able to would most vehicles. Maybe there could be an alternate wound chart for vehicles. I have a hard time believing that heavy bolter and bolters would, given volume of fire, stop anything heavier than a medium APC (say a rhino or maybe a chimera from the side). Tanks should be invulnerable to a certain amount of weaponry, after all, that is what they were designed to do. It would further differentiate and define unit abilities and roles. If someone has left an infantry platoon out on its own with no method of stopping vehicles, then shame on the commander.

Under your new system, it seems that armies like Orks wouldn't really benefit too much. Under the current system, 10 Ork Rokkits have a 55% chance of causing a glancing hit on a Land Raider. Under the new system (Land Raider = T9, 3+/5+), 10 Rokkits have a 74% chance of causing a single wound. Like you said, this would probably require a dramatic rewrite of the rules.

I think you have to find a way to work T into facing, but i don't see why it should be complicated - a simple F/S/R split of T would be ample (so a speeder has 6/6/6, a russ has 9/7/6 or something)

Armour save doesn't affect heavy weapons of AP1-3, so adjusting the save for facing doesn't have much affect on most heavy weapons.

Other than that I like the system a lot

I don't think I agree with what is proposed here. The problem isn't so much the rules but the premise of statistically distributed vehicles is a necessarily good thing.

The first problem is that it doesn't make too much physical sense, as vehicles generally rely on armor to survive, which upon penetration, is irrelevent. Upon proper penetration, it usually just guts the entire section of vehicle.

Now there is a few issues with the current system, but they do not need to be fixed in this manner.

The first is the higher survivability of "creatures" to vehicles. This is due to save system that creates massive discontinuouities in itself, not due to the vehicle system. One could say that is the part of the system that needs fixing, not the vehicle system.

The second problem or weakened transports is hardly due to the AV system. In 3rd ed transports are perfectly viable despite the vehicle statlines being the same. Simple balancing issues like this is more of a matter of point costs and detailed specific rules than general system flaws.

Now finally, unique vehicles for different fractions have already long been implemented with a large set of special rules. One could simply have those rules a overhaul and streamline them into consistant generalized rules. For example, the holofield being 4+ invulnerable dodge save, the decoy launcher and smoke being +5 invulnerable save and so on. Things the increase toughness are current done with modifcations to the damage table, like extra armor and sprit stones, which can be extended to a universal set of rules. Maybe its possible to have a 2D6 damage table to allow more fine grained effects.

If there is a desire for low powered weapons to do damage, one can be another damage table for sub-strength weapons of doing damage.

-------------
Additional problem with the proposed rules:
The proposed rules will probably make high strength, low AP weapons dominate more than it already does. Such weapons are already critical in defeating MEQ armies, and with the addition of armor saves to vehicles, it would make it the only weapon on the field. With the increase in number of wounds, having the most shots of low AP weapons would be the best way to counter vehicles, as opposed to having simply high strength weapons. Many traditional (light) vehicle hunting weapons like mutilasers, autocannons, some nid weapons and such will have its performance vastly degraded against armor saves while the staple anti-MEQ and anti-2+ weapons like lascannons, plasmaguns and such will be retain its effectiveness against all targets. In this new sistuation, two missile launchers would be better than a railgun in many cases, and we can see where this is going.

Now it might be possible rebalance between weapons by point cost shuffling of weapons. However, such reshuffling would have to lower the relative costs of anti-GEQ weapons by far more to make up for its ineffectiveness against both MEQ and Vehicles, futher depowering GEQ armies, requiring massive rebalances in GEQ armies.

In any case the similaries between creatures and vehicles will tightly bind both set of weapons closer and result in even more homogeneous weapon sets. To think, only one set of weapons to kill tanks, MEQ and monsterous creatures, as the armor save binds them all.

A better vision would be balance the game so that different targets require seriously different weapons. This would make meta-gaming more effective in touraments, and armies more balanced. (in the sense of long run average balance in random matchups, not individual matchups) Probably better to loosely couple different aspect of the game than to bind them.
---------
Besides, you are telling me that if I land a battlecannon round square into a trukk, it would not take damage and still have 3 wounds left, while that heavy bolter hit managed to frag another trukk over there with one shot?