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.

Forgive me if this idea has been suggested before.  It has always bothered me that weapons have an Armor Penetration score, yet when we roll to penetrate the armor of a vehicle, this score isn't used except in extreme cases (AP1 and AP-).  I propose the following modification:

To determine the penetration of a weapon against a vehicle, roll a D6, add the strength of the weapon, and subtract the AP.  Here are some examples:

Weapon : penetration score
Bolter, shuriken catapult : D6-1
Burst cannon : D6
Heavy bolter, shuriken cannon : D6+1
Assault cannon, reaper launcher : D6+2
Autocannon, kroot gun : D6+3
Star cannon, ion cannon : D6+4
Krak missile, plasma weapons : D6+5
Bright lance : D6+6
Lascannon, melta weapons (outside of half range) : D6+7
Demolisher cannon : D6+8
Railgun (solid shot) : D6+9
Melta weapons (within half range) : 2D6+7

AP- weapons could be treated as AP6, but with the restriction that only glancing hits are possible (although this restriction will rarely, if ever, come into play).  Close combat attacks would be treated as AP- unless they ignore armor saves, in which case they would be treated as AP2.  Grenades would have to be given AP values, but this should be fairly straightforward (eg meltabombs get AP1).

The advantage here -- other than the logical use of AP for rolling armor penetration -- is that there is more spread in penetration scores.  Bolters max out at 5, whereas railguns max out at 15, compared to 10 and 16 under the current system.  This will knock a lot of weapons out of their anti-tank roles.

I would be inclined to set the lowest armor values at 7 and the highest at 13.  A 7 might be appropriate for an IG sentinel, which can be glanced by a lucky heavy bolter shot, but will always be penetrated by a lascannon.  This is only slightly worse for the sentinel when facing the lascannon, but it's much more durable against weapons in the lower part of the spectrum.  Rhinos might have a front armor of 9, making it just as fragile against lascannons but much more resilient to the large number of S6 and S7 weapons.  Land Raiders would have an armor of 13, so even the lascannon would need a 6 to glance.  Now it might be worth 250 points!  You would pretty much have to go after Land Raiders with special anti-tank weapons like meltaguns.  As a general rule, all armor values would be reduced by either 1, 2 or 3.  A deduction of 3 would be for vehicles that are about right (bearing in mind that all vehicles will benefit from the weakening of mid strength weapns), a deduction of 2 for vehicles that should be somewhat tougher, and a deduction of 1 for vehicles that should be significantly tougher.

Of course the point cost of a lot of weapons would have to be reevaluated, but with the current trend of making heavy weapons less accessible, I think this would make vehicles a lot more survivable without requiring a complex change to the game mechanics.

Do you mean that, for example, one of my Meltagun-packing troopers would (within half range) roll for armor penetration with two dice, and then add 7?

I just wanted to clarify that, since I wasn't entirely sure.

I agree that the tank system needs to be changed, but all I see this doing is making it even more confusing for players, since they'll have to refer to a different armor penetration value versus vehicles.

I think a better system would be for every weapon to have a Strength value only (with the exception of a few notable weapons, which would have additional information regarding their firepower, like Melta weapons or Railguns). Then, all units (both vehicles and infantry would use the same system) would have an Armor value (not a save, but a rating).

In order for a weapon to successfully inflict damage upon a unit, it would need to confer a chart (like the To-Hit or To-Wound charts in the BGB), which would compare the armor value against the strength of the weapon. From there, a saving throw would be determined. I believe this is the way AT-43 uses its units (armored vehicles just end up having a larger armor value, rather than use a completely different (and highly variable) system of Armor Value and D6 Penetration), and I believe it would make for much more streamlined play (and much more reliable and attractive anti-personnel weapons, giving rise to Heavy Bolter and Burst Cannon heavy armies.).

I like your idea, shirou, but it seems too arbitrary for me.

CK

Hmm your rules would make shooting at armour much more confusing while not addressing the problem that medium armoured units (like dreads) have with survivability. Face it, most everyone who takes rhinos and other lightly armoured vehicles knows they do one-way trips with the prevalence of anti-tank weapons out there so smoke launchers (or the equivalent) are the only upgrades that are really cost effective.

That's not entirely true.

I had a Rhino outlast my two land raiders and dreadnaught against Necrons.

This system is quite similar to 2ed, in which one rolled a varied number of dice + weapon str + save mod to determine armor penetration. Frankly, the T/Sv/W system for vehicles posited here some time ago is the most interesting and innovative I've ever seen. Look it up, I encourage you.

-Adso

Posted By ColonelEllios on 09/30/2007 5:02 AM
That's not entirely true.

I had a Rhino outlast my two land raiders and dreadnaught against Necrons.

see i think that vehicles are to weak and are almost always terrian peices.. i think insted of finding more way to kill them we should find was to make a tank ( emphized) an intimidating presence of the battlefield. the structure points on the big boys is cool but might be overpowered with standerd armor.

plus the shaken and stunned effects........ very frustrating! how many people have played armor ( at least 2 or 3) and they never actaully did anything but survied the whole game?

 

just my thoughts...... not knocking anybody

I don't really see a need for this system, as most high strength weapons have low AP's. Most high strength assault attacks are either a powerfist ( ignores armor ) or a monstrous creature. The few exceptions can be explained by the weapon's unusual effects or nature, like the Eldar singing spear. Again, as one poster said, I think the problem is with dreads. They dont seem to have good survivability unless you're able to keep them away from the lascannons.

I think the best way to make vehicles last longer isn't to change anything about the vehicles at all. I think that what we need to see is an increased cost for heavy (particularly anti tank) weapons. If they get more expensive, we will see fewer of them on the field (or at least we'll see less troops sucking up wounds for them at least).

The other option would be to change the crew shaken rule to make it so that the vehicle can't move next turn but can still shoot. Or perhaps change it so that it can do one or the other but not both (up to the tank's player to decide).

hey ever notice in the new bloodangels and dark angels codex rihno's have no fire points, hell for that fact they dont have acces points (so the guys get welded in?? the only way out is the masive hole thats gonna be blown in it?????)

I have heard a few DEATH COMPANY players notice this.

In the Vanilla Marines Codex, you have fire points and access points.

Not in the blood Angels or DA. Boo hoo. so sad.

(Only kidding!!!!!)

I must say though, being able to put an Assault Cannon and Multi-Melta on your Land Speeders compensates?

Yes/No?

PS give me a call Aido.