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.

In all honesty, vehicles as they are now are already MC's in functionality if not name, except that any to-wound roll exceeding the minimum required to hurt them can inflict ID or cripple them in some other way and they lack any saves, are unable to interact with objectives in any way, and are hilariously easy to kill in CC.

Really, at this point, they either need to scrap AV altogether and just make vehicles T units with saves, or roll them back to the previous editions stance, because 6E's method of dealing with vehicles is quickly resulting in them being left off the table entirely unless they're of fairly high AV, are flyers, or are 35pt utterly expendable Rhinos.

KnuckleWolf wrote:While working with another forum member briefly on an alternate rule set, and playing lots of World of Tanks, I dreamed up a similar mechanic. My thought was that they had a Toughness score like every other model rated 1 to 10 per front/side/rear, and an armor save relative to the construction of the tanks sloped armor and drivers skill. I never did anything with it as far as testing but it seemed sound in theory. I also thought there wouldnt have to be much stat changing on weapons.

So a Space Marine Predator would have like Toughness 9/8/6 and Armor 4+/5+/- or Hull Down 5+ Cover and a Tau Devilfish would be Toughness 8/7/6 and Armor 3+/4+/- or Jink 4+ Cover. A Land Raider could be Toughness 10/10/10 and Armor 5+/-/- Hull Down 6+ Cover as only its front has any real angles to it and its hard to hide.

Was a thought in my head, now its in your heads. Do with it as you will.

I agree something like that would work equally as well as it combines MC's with Vehicles and perhaps makes better sense for using Toughnss values (instead of a blanket Toughness value like a Monstrous Creature), although I'd add 'wounds' (so anything but a Explodes result will cripple it but it would still function, then for every wound it suffers you could add +1 to the damage table) etc...

Vaktathi wrote:In all honesty, vehicles as they are now are already MC's in functionality if not name, except that any to-wound roll exceeding the minimum required to hurt them can inflict ID or cripple them in some other way and they lack any saves, are unable to interact with objectives in any way, and are hilariously easy to kill in CC.

Really, at this point, they either need to scrap AV altogether and just make vehicles T units with saves, or roll them back to the previous editions stance, because 6E's method of dealing with vehicles is quickly resulting in them being left off the table entirely unless they're of fairly high AV, are flyers, or are 35pt utterly expendable Rhinos.

That's pretty much how I feel when playing 6th, even the Defiler I ran with AV13, a 5++ save, the ability to Ignore Shaken and Stunned results and 'It will Not Die' died in combat to 3 Necron Wraiths, despite never having its hull penetrated once - with some good rolling I kept it alive for longer than it deserved, but I still only managed to kill 1 Wraith in return. That's almost as tough as a vehicle can be in 6th and it still didn't quite cut it due to the way the HP system works.

I think (along with others) a MC mechanic to represent them may be better than what they have currently. I don't have so much of an issue with them dying quicker in combat, unless it's due to attacks with a low AP (as Infantry can attack precise and vital areas more so than a ranged weapon), it's just that Vehicles don't play how I'd imagine them to, in part due to the AP system having no effect bar adding bonuses to damage for AP1 & 2.

Players ay my club still use ground vehicles, even though they rarely do much, though this is more out of defiance than actual effectiveness.

One easy quick and dirty fix for the current lack of survivability on tanks was to increase the damage result table to 8 results and make the low results mostly meh. Seeing as how AP 2+ add one and AP 1+ add two to the chart and all, those results ARE possible. This way if you want to take a tank out in one shot you HAD to bring anti armor weaponry. Their would be a fair amount of tweaking I'm sure.

Just turn av into toughness.
Av 10 T6
Av 11 T7
Etc.
Then give the vehicle an armor save based on its new toughness.
Then rework 40k similar to fantasy where strength lowers armor saves.
I hate how str 10 tyranid cannonballs have a chance to be stopped by 6+ armor saves.

@Thunderwolf. If you are going to change it that much, you might as well re do the whole damage resolution.
Its much simpler to deduct AV from AP, and damage from resiliance to get save and damage rolls required.
(Eg how a lot of modern rule sets do it.)

Wrecking to glances in 6th is so anticlimactic. It's a glance... I think glance and I think minimum damage done. IMHO glances should be a 4+ and pens just are cover/invul dependant. Of course some races will have modifiers to this.

I agree an altered damage table might also be suitable - much like 5th Ed really, although with Hull Points (which I've nothing against in principle) maybe affecting the vehicle in some negative way should they be lost. You could have modifiers for Strength or AP etc

Thunderwolf39 wrote:Just turn av into toughness.
Av 10 T6
Av 11 T7
Etc.
Then give the vehicle an armor save based on its new toughness.
Then rework 40k similar to fantasy where strength lowers armor saves.
I hate how str 10 tyranid cannonballs have a chance to be stopped by 6+ armor saves.

You mean kinda like back in 2nd Edition I'm all for that but I don't think it's reasonable with the game as it stands, although a MC mechanic may work better.

Goat wrote:Wrecking to glances in 6th is so anticlimactic. It's a glance... I think glance and I think minimum damage done. IMHO glances should be a 4+ and pens just are cover/invul dependant. Of course some races will have modifiers to this.

Yeah that's how I see it - a vehicles taken a few dents and is wrecked all of a sudden I still think a morale system may be better, so the crew of a vehicle reduced to 0 Hull Points by a glancing hit must roll a LD test to continue to use the vehicle, even if it's only capable of snap-firing or at a reduced movement - or else they can choose to abandon it and get in the action! I think a vehicle should only be removed once it takes a penetrating hit (if it suffers a pen hit on '0' Hull Points then it becomes wrecked). For each Hull Point lost you could reduce its speed by an inch or two or something similar, but I don't think it should simply become Wrecked.

Two things in vehicle combat that hasn't been done in 40k, as far as I know, are fires and bailing out as was just mentioned above. In 'Flames of War' a crew can be forced to bail out as a result of being hit. But that was modeled after WWII combat far more so than 40k. In game the bail out result just meant the tank was not going to act on its turn barring some further dice rolls. Hull points are fine for keeping the game moving and all, but the glance equals hull point thing is just, ugh. If you added fires as a result on the damage chart...something to consider yes?

I just want 2nd edition vehicle damage tables back (am I allowed to say "back" if I've never played 2nd?)...

Glancing hit strips a hull point, penetrating hit takes a hull point and lets you roll on the "penetrating hit table" which can do many many horrible things to your vehicle...

That way a vehicle can not be destroyed in one hit, but a penetrating hit can seriously ruin a vehicle's day.

Having played 2nd ed.Vehicle damage tables and the rest of 2nd ed complication for complex game play ethos worked fine for skirmish games.

BUT with the current model count , 2nd ed rules would take far to long to play IMO.

A system that is similar to other modern war games like FoW would be preferable IMO.

But again this is re-write territory not adding even more rules to an over complicated rule set.